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!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
My biggest issue with Ultimate is that aside from Classic Mode, I'm just not as much a fan with Spirits and World of Light compared to Smash Run. I think they have good concepts, they are just not fun to replay. I also don't like how we didn't get a non-Sephiroth Boss Rush, let alone an option to fight Bosses with the Spirit Mode fight replay. Man, how much I wish Smash Run returned, let alone enemy Mooks. Spirits and World of Light would've been more replayable if there were Mooks for you to fight if they were added to some Spirit matches and whatnot.
I don't deny how much Ultimate has brought, but if an Ultimate Deluxe means no new Single-player content to add and no Mooks, then I personally want another Smash Bros to happen, because I want Modes that are just as fun and replayable as Smash Run.
Some takes here are kinda wild imo. Why are you guys comparing Smash to Pokémon and to... Fire Emblem of all things? Those are mostly single player focused games (especially Fire Emblem). Single player sequels are entirely about offering a new experience, with new mechanics, new story, revamped presentation etc. etc.
Smash meanwhile is a multiplayer game. Single player modes are nice to have but for the biggest chunk of the audience the real hours are pulled in multiplayer.
And when you look at the most successful multiplayer games... Fortnite, Sea of Thieves, Smash itself, Mario Kart... They tend to become sort of a "platform" that gets periodically updated and offers larger and larger amounts of content to play with. Even the main mechanics can and have been adjusted via patches.
I am extremely skeptical about most people caring about the UI so much that they'd prioritize a revamp of it over actual content, old and new alike.
And "Smash will sell anyways!" is also a lame argument imo.
First off, if it just sells anyways, why put effort into it? A port with some new stuff would just about do.
And then, the next Smash doesn't just need to sell itself, but it also needs to sell the next console. Would it being a downgrade or even a sidegrade over the previous game that everyone already has do that better than it being a clear upgrade? I have my doubts.
I can agree with these arguments if the next game really shifts gears in terms of mechanics. Like, I dunno, they go fully 3d, or they add a lane-switching system a la Fatal Fury, or they add a third type of move over the "normal" and "special" ones to every character, etc. etc... That's something that you can sell as a new experience. Because it is.
But if the changes amount to essentially just adjustements to game speed and general hitstun like they've always done after Melee?... I think the times these kinds of changes necessitated a new game are over. Those are not radical changes at the end of the day. Nowadays they happen via patches and don't sacrifice content.
Mostly the same game as Ultimate with overall less content really isn't the console mover slam dunk most people here think it is. Especially when you consider that 1. The community at large absolutely loves Ultimate, and 2. Half the world is in recession! You need very good reasons to buy a new console, one of the objectively lowest priority expenses a household can have.
What do most people like about Smash? Its deep yet accesible gameplay (which they've already nailed), its large amounts of content and being able to play as your favorite videogame characters. That's where the focus should be for a mostly iterative sequel.
My biggest issue with Ultimate is that aside from Classic Mode, I'm just not as much a fan with Spirits and World of Light compared to Smash Run. I think they have good concepts, they are just not fun to replay. I also don't like how we didn't get a non-Sephiroth Boss Rush, let alone an option to fight Bosses with the Spirit Mode fight replay. Man, how much I wish Smash Run returned, let alone enemy Mooks. Spirits and World of Light would've been more replayable if there were Mooks for you to fight if they were added to some Spirit matches and whatnot.
I don't deny how much Ultimate has brought, but if an Ultimate Deluxe means no new Single-player content to add and no Mooks, then I personally want another Smash Bros to happen, because I want Modes that are just as fun and replayable as Smash Run.
It's unfortunate they designed Smash Run specifically for the 3DS. Hence it not being the Wii U version.
...That said, it's more of a case of "it just happened to be an exclusive". While it's hard to justify the split screen very well in Smash alone, compared to everyone having their own screen, it just being a single player thing would've worked great(or online). Like, oof. It was quite fun. My only annoyance with is the fact you can't explore the entire area because it's just a limited time thing. Making it a proper adventure mode would've done wonders. Go through everything, and have a "finish point" instead. It was fun to grind in, but the game loved to freeze on me during it, so I stuck to Target Blast for my grinding(it was more fun for me in the long run).
Whoops, got busy today and forgot to check back on the thread. Apologies to those that have probably been awaiting a response for a while (like I was earlier).
Alright, I think I've laid out my prediction for the next game as of today. I only got two responses for what I had asked of you guys, but that's alright. I actually ended up having to go a bit over the base total that both respondees gave me, only because it was extremely tough to justifiably remove characters after a certain threshold, and my total for base game veterans ended up hovering around the character count SSB4 had post-DLC, which I feel is an acceptable benchmark veteran-wise for Smash installments going forward. Without further ado, here's the lists of veterans, newcomers, and echoes that I have laid out for my prediction for the next Smash installment.
Base game veterans (56 characters):
1. Mario
2. Luigi
3. Peach
4. Bowser
5. Bowser Jr. (Koopalings as alts)
6. Wario
7. Yoshi
8. Donkey Kong
9. Diddy Kong
10. King K. Rool
11. Link
12. Zelda
13. Ganondorf
14. Samus
15. Ridley
16. Kirby
17. Meta Knight
18. King Dedede
19. Fox
20. Falco
21. Pikachu
22. Jigglypuff
23. Mewtwo
24. Lucario
25. Greninja
26. Inkling
27. Marth
28. Ike
29. Byleth
30. Olimar (Louie, Alph, P4 Rookie as alts)
31. Villager
32. Isabelle
33. Shulk
34. Pyra
35. Mythra (Her and Pyra are still a duo, I'm just following Ultimate's rules on this in terms of counting)
36. Min Min
37. Pit
38. Little Mac
39. Captain Falcon
40. Ness
41. Ice Climbers
42. Mr. Game & Watch
43. R.O.B.
44. Duck Hunt
45. Sonic
46. Bayonetta
47. Mega Man
48. Ryu
49. Pac-Man
50. Simon (Richter, Trevor, Julius as alts)
51. Snake
52. Cloud
53. Hero (Erdrick as the main costume, Luminary, Solo and Eight as alts)
54. Terry
55. Banjo & Kazooie
56. Steve (Alex, Zombie, Enderman as alts)
As a side note before I continue, I tend to not factor in the Mii Fighters in my predictions currently, as the jury's out on whether they'd still be important at all for the next system. Though I may go back and add them in, assuming backwards compatability is on the table for the next system.
Base game newcomers (12 characters):
1. Waluigi (Super Mario)
2. Impa (The Legend of Zelda)
3. Octoling (Splatoon)
4. A new, yet-to-be known Pokemon
5. Noah (Xenoblade)
6. Ring Fit Trainee (Ring Fit Adventure)
7. Conductor (Rhythm Heaven)
8. Officer Howard (Astral Chain)
9. A highly demanded Nintendo character (BWD, Isaac, an RPG Mario character etc)
10. The retro/surprise pick for this game
11. Bomberman
12. Zero (Mega Man X)
Echo fighters (7 characters):
=Returning echoes=
1. Daisy
2. Dark Samus
3. Lucina
4. Ken =New echoes=
1. Dixie Kong (Donkey Kong)
2. Mio (Xenoblade)
3. Shadow (Sonic the Hedgehog)
Now here's where things get tricky/interesting; the subject of DLC. My prediction is that there will be two types of DLC releases concerning characters: Challenger Packs, which are essentially like the ones in Ultimate, and individual characters, which are cheaper and handled more like some of the DLC releases in 4. This system is all going off the assumption that this next game will put a larger emphasis on post-launch content compared to past titles (I personally predict at least three Fighter's Passes worth of brand new characters at minimum.)
This system is mainly to address the unique situation of veterans returning as DLC. The latter category would specifically be targeted towards Nintendo's missing characters that miss the boat, but a few special cases would be in the former category for reasons that should be apparent when I list them off.
Characters that'd be sold as singular downloads (10 characters):
1. Rosalina & Luma
2. Toon Link
3. Wolf
4. Pokemon Trainer
5. Incineroar
6. Roy
7. Robin
8. Lucas
9. Wii Fit Trainer
10. Palutena
Challenger Packs (ordered by how confident I am of them out of everyone I've listed)
1. A new FE Lord
2. Sephiroth (Final Fantasy VII)
3. Kazuya (Tekken)
4. Arle (Puyo Puyo)
5. Hayabusa (Ninja Gaiden)
6. Character/protagonist from a to-be-revealed new Nintendo game (potentially two from this category)
7. Sora (Kingdom Hearts)
8. Sol Badguy (Guilty Gear)
9. Crash (Crash Bandicoot)
10. A new Atlus character (or Joker)
11. Dante/Phoenix Wright (Devil May Cry/Phoenix Wright) [I believe both are on equal footing currently]
12. Doomguy (Doom)
13. Crono (Chrono Trigger)
14. Adol (Ys)
15. The Tarnished (Elden Ring)
16. Tako (Parodius) [my personal shot in the dark prediction]
This is a non-exhaustive list and is the part most subject to change.
Feel free to give thoughts and feedback on my predictions here. I'm happy to explain my choices and decisions in as much detail as I can, if any of you wish to inquire. (also I may have made a goof up or two when posting this because this is a lot to double check so forgive me if any glaring oversights are present)
It's a fairly agreeable list, some characters I would miss are counteracted by the promise of adding them later as DLC. You mapped out a lot of DLC, I'm not sure we would see that much but I would at least hope certain veterans that miss the cut have that cushion so long as it doesn't interfere too heavily with the main course. Also regarding Miis, they will 100% be in the next game. I'm certain the system will accommodate them on behalf of backwards compatibility and Mii Costumes have been an efficient way for Nintendo to expand Smash's crossover potential further than would have been feasible otherwise. The Miis have become an economy all their own within Smash, cutting them is sacrificing dozens of new connections and millions of potential dollars.
I feel the push for a longer and more filled DLC cycle would be the only one that I could see making sense from a business standpoint. The DLC cycle last game was one that I felt helped Nintendo a lot in terms of publicity, particularly surrounding their Nintendo Directs (and Digital Events). While Smash obviously isn't the ultimate metric on whether a Direct is well-recieved (the one we had this month was considered amazing even though Ultimate has been long finished), it'd also be foolish to deny that Smash brings a lot of extra engagement for these events. And with the overall success of Mario Kart 8 DX's Booster Course Pack in spite of it happening years after the game's release, I can see Nintendo finding a lot of merit in having Smash's post-launch cycle extend much longer this time around, especially if part of the intent is to ensure most characters are not left behind in the end.
Of course, if I wanted an ideal next Smash, I would just have given the base game a much longer development cycle to ensure less cuts happen to begin with, but I am trying to keep things relatively in check here.
Fair enough on the Mii Fighters as well. I don't think they would eat up too much development assuming their system remains more-or-less unchanged from Ultimate.
This might be an unexpected criticism, but the least defensible cut is Wii Fit Trainer. I understand Ring Fit Trainee is being added, but otherwise you made a point to bring back every single Nintendo series aside from Wii Fit. That just strikes me as a bit odd. If your Ice Climbers, ROB, Duck Hunt etc can still squeeze in there I don't see why Wii Fit Trainer should be the one single loose end. She and RFT wouldn't fight a whole lot like one another anyway. Robin getting snubbed is a bit arguable as well but I get why you did it, it's not impossible that they get cut but I usually value their distinct gameplay function among the pack.
The only reason I replaced Wii Fit with Ring Fit was actually because I felt Ring Fit is part of the same series, so to speak. I can very much picture the series being renamed just to the "Fit" series, and I do apologize that I didn't make that idea clearer initially.
Robin was a very hard choice when it came to squeezing the base game number down, but it doesn't look like Three Houses will back down from its spot within the FE fandom anytime soon. Keeping Lucina as an Echo was primarily to cushion the blow a little and so that Awakening's significance as the series' revival wasn't completely tossed aside.
Newcomer lineup is okay. I won't spend too much time saying I think x and y are totally gonna happen or totally not gonna happen, but my kneejerk suggestions would be that I'd have vouched Chun-Li over Zero, and that a new Animal Crossing character is worth adding and strongly likely. I appreciate the addition of Rhyhtm Heaven, but as a diehard fan and supporter I'm truly not holding my breath.
My main reasons for peddling Zero over Chun-Li are twofold. The first reason is because Zero would essentially bring a new series in spinoff clothing to Smash. Even though Mega Man X is a very notable series in Capcom circles (and to some people, even more recognizable than Classic Mega Man), it only has the bare minimum in Ultimate, and had practically nothing besides X's cameos in SSB4. While one could argue Chun-Li could bring in more modern Street Fighter content, I can see the greater value in what fuller MMX representation can bring to the table.
The second reason is a bit more blunt, but it's something I feel is important; Zero being an Assist Trophy already in Ultimate, and one of the very fighter-like Assists, at that. You can probably tell that "Assist Trophy promotions" is a soft theme across my base game newcomers, and that's mainly because (especially in the case of Ultimate making a lot of Assists more fighter-like) I feel the current Assist lineup has a good pool of characters that A: are already a ways there in terms of being turned into a full fighter, and B: would bring a lot of positive attention to the series if they're turned into a fighter. Not to say that this is decisive, but I would not deny that Zero very much has a head start over Chun-Li from a development perspective. and of course the devs LOVE swordfighter movesets too
I feel very stubborn about considering a third Animal Crossing character. It's a big series, yes, but something doesn't sit right about a potential third Villager running around; compared to the Marth or Fox archetype, I feel that turning Villager into a complete character archetype would fly in the face of what made the Villager an interesting inclusion in the first place, being a non-fighter whose tools and objects are refitted for a fighting game context. I gave Isabelle a pass primarily because she is overwhelmingly popular, but I think any more beyond her would run the risk of making the once-unique Villager feel...ordinary. It'd be like if I took Mr. Game & Watch's concept and added a "Mr. Famicom" and "Mr. Arcade" alongside him. Sure, the latter two would have great potential for unique toolsets, but now Mr. Game & Watch doesn't feel really all that special any more.
I may be a bit optimistic with Rhythm Heaven, but compared to most other "dead" Nintendo series, I'd say it has more going in its favor than most. The series still has an active community, it lasted quite longer than most other dormant Nintendo series, and while 2015 was 9 years ago(!), that's still decently more recent than a fair amount of other dormant Nintendo series, as well. And of course, there was also the inferred previous attempt at including a character in Smash (I feel that EiH is why it didn't happen in Ultimate, either). But I also won't leave out the opportunity that I am wrong.
This subject is certainly going to be a point of debate for a lot of people, but personally, as long as Smash continues to have traditional sequels, third party characters are going to be essential to the experience, particularly as the first-party well continues to slowly dry. Besides most of the companies seeming to have healthy relationships with Nintendo from a Smash front, any absences from the guest side of things are naturally going to be felt more than, say, the removal of a Pokemon or Fire Emblem character from the game. I did try to be fair with the three (remember the Echoes) characters I put in as base-game newcomers; two are extensions to already-repped series, and the third is a character already present in the last game in non-playable capacities, owned by a company that already has other IPs in Smash, and one with exceptional demand at that.
I was strongly considering Charizard in base, but Mewtwo won out solely on the fact that Charizard being alone in Smash 4 to begin with was primarily because of technical issues, and I feel that it wouldn't be fair if the Pokemon Trainer was once again shafted for reasons less justifiable this time around. Pichu and Incineroar were the only ones I could easily cut. Lucario is still very popular (otherwise I would've probably snubbed him for Charizard), Greninja is also still very popular (and will likely have Legends Z-A on his side as well), and Jigglypuff always manages to squeeze its way back in one way or another (and also Scream Tail is a thing).
I'll be humble and admit I've never studied Xeno 3 in depth, pretty much the only thing that stuck out in what I remember hearing about the game is that Noah and Mio could use each others' main weapons freely. That, and I didn't want to have any further third-party Echoes added beyond Shadow here. So yeah, if Mio as an Echo is a terrible idea, then please forgive me for being pretty blind to the Xeno series here.
Before we go down a side route of dissecting more games and how they're really flawed parallels, I'd like to get an answer to this, because this is the heart of the disagreement:
If what you were saying is true, there would be no need to release any actual new games once you had a few successful ones. Actually not just that, but that it would make better business sense to not release new games. I mean, new games are more expensive to develop, where would the sense be to make them if the older cheaper thing will sell better?
In fact, how'd we even get to five (or, sort of, six) original Smash games and zero ports, in that case?
Besides, FFXIV and Minecraft are terrible examples;
These are not Fighting Games with specialized rosters. They're an MMO(which has constant downloads and doesn't actually end for a long time) that is easy as hell to port over and generally doesn't have much 3rd party content(which matters massively) and Minecraft(which started as an Indie game, not Microsoft owned. It got ported over after Microsoft was able to handle these kind of money issues too. It was just a PC exclusive for quite a long time).
In addition, Minecraft dealt with issues too, like Sony not letting its version even connect with other consoles for a long time. We still have some exclusive costumes too(though not many), showing it's not really what is being portrayed here. Clearly it didn't allow for everything to be licensed in the ports. Which is a big part of the argument being made, that licensing makes it hard as hell to port over. FYI, the Halo Mash-Up Pack is not on the Sony platforms. Which hard disproves the point.
As for FFXIV, note how most of it is SE crossovers. That said, they do require some licensing, but it's still more in-company. That's no different from getting Pokemon content overall, though maybe a tad tougher. Next, you have at most three different franchises from another company altogether, and they aren't that much as Smash ever was. Let's also note some other stuff; it was first timed exclusively for the PC, but was also meant to be on the PS3. Then it got ported to the PS4 and eventually PS5. An Xbox 360 port was cancelled(which further shows it's not that easy to do), also notably because they couldn't come to an agreement(see what I mean by not being easy to do?). It'll finally come the Xbox Series S.
But also look at one key pin piece of XIV; it has a pretty small amount of actual 3rd party franchise cameos. Smash is not small amount. It's massively full of it. Minecraft would be too, but it still doesn't allow all the stuff to be on every console, so it's also strong evidence ports can't bring everything over anyway.
So ultimately? No, they don't prove anything but that ports are not super easy. Minecraft also took forever to get an actual new game in the franchise, anyway. Story Mode got mixed to average reviews(showing it wasn't nearly as popular as the original either). In fact, said title was pulled from the online stores due to them not being able to keep the licensing rights up. ...Imagine that. Poor Telltale Games, as they were having financial issues. You know, despite apparently being the developer for one of the biggest franchises in the world? I hope this is making it clear how things are never simple. Dungeons did better at least, as did Bedrock Edition. But the attempt at a story wasn't that great.
That said, this is why you can't compare them either. They're blatantly different situations. Only the original Minecraft did severely well, while the other parts of it did okay or fairly well. FF in general does massively well, but it's also a much bigger franchise than Smash, and obviously the game in question isn't 3rd party heavy enough to make it difficult to port to other consoles(though no agreement for the Xbox 360 version is quite telling, as I said above).
Some franchises don't need to change much. Some do. Some are easy to license. Some aren't. Etc.
Yes, well, it doesn't really matter how many examples I give. Because you'll just keep making up excuses for why they don't count.
How about BlazBlue? It's a fighting game that basically rereleased across multiple console generations, adding more characters each time. What irrelevant difference to Smash does it have that makes it not count?
My biggest issue with Ultimate is that aside from Classic Mode, I'm just not as much a fan with Spirits and World of Light compared to Smash Run. I think they have good concepts, they are just not fun to replay. I also don't like how we didn't get a non-Sephiroth Boss Rush, let alone an option to fight Bosses with the Spirit Mode fight replay. Man, how much I wish Smash Run returned, let alone enemy Mooks. Spirits and World of Light would've been more replayable if there were Mooks for you to fight if they were added to some Spirit matches and whatnot.
Yes, well, it doesn't really matter how many examples I give. Because you'll just keep making up excuses for why they don't count.
How about BlazBlue? It's a fighting game that basically rereleased across multiple console generations, adding more characters each time. What irrelevant difference to Smash does it have that makes it not count?
I mean, Super Smash Bros. is in a pretty unique spot since there aren't a ton of long lasting series that are a hotspot for licensing deals. I can't really speak on BlazBlue since I haven't played any of that series's games, but from what I do know, I think MvC2 is probably the closest to SSBU that you can get: A fighting game with a massive roster filled with several licensed characters, both achieving this feat with heavy asset reusage. Super Smash Bros. does have more moving parts than MvC since more companies are involved, and it's always tried to offer more than most fighting games do, and will be pressured to do so, especially with the lack of good single-player content compared to its predecessors being one of its biggest critiques...
I honestly don't know. They probably could pull it off since the series seems to be very attractive to other collaborators, and the dev team (Sakurai in particular) is very well respected. Would they want to though? The main argument in favor seems to be that keeping everyone and adding a few extras would be such a great selling point that people would buy the game again, and that a massive roster cut is extremely risky. They haven't really shown any interest in porting these games though, with not a single rerelease of any of those games having happened yet, and, while this was several years ago, the idea of an enhanced port as a new main entry in the series was seen as a threat by Sakurai, which makes it seem even less likely that they'd go for it if they could help it. There's also that the system could be backwards compatible, which would make a rerelease kinda pointless...
Thinking about it, I feel like the only pro to this choice is that roster, which for now I think is kinda weak. I would be open to a port of the game a few generactions down the line though. Once a whole host of characters have been introduced to the series, the release of a port that has those new characters could be really cool. It would be a cool way to have your Smash Bros. games that try to innovate on the formula cake and eat the Everyone is Here roster too, even if only every once in a while.
TLDR: I ramble on about liscensing and intent before taking a weaksause middle ground approach that's only tangentially related to what I was responding to, as I tend to do. lol
Some takes here are kinda wild imo. Why are you guys comparing Smash to Pokémon and to... Fire Emblem of all things? Those are mostly single player focused games (especially Fire Emblem). Single player sequels are entirely about offering a new experience, with new mechanics, new story, revamped presentation etc. etc.
Smash meanwhile is a multiplayer game. Single player modes are nice to have but for the biggest chunk of the audience the real hours are pulled in multiplayer.
And when you look at the most successful multiplayer games... Fortnite, Sea of Thieves, Smash itself, Mario Kart... They tend to become sort of a "platform" that gets periodically updated and offers larger and larger amounts of content to play with. Even the main mechanics can and have been adjusted via patches.
That's because when people use how other fighting games frequently pare down their rosters from the final count of the previous to the smaller launch of the next and still find success people rattle off "Smash isn't like other fighters!" Well it's closer to that than Sea of Thieves.
Look at how each successive Splatoon has launched with less content than the previous built to by its end. You think we're set for Splatoon 3 Deluxe? Or you could wait a year or so and see how Mario Kart still sells gangbusters despite having far less content at launch than MK8D does now.
It's not contingent on multiplayer or single-player. Also, for every Skyward Sword to BotW, you're gonna have a New Super Mario Bros. Wii to a New Super Mario Bros. 2. Different, but not that different. And btw, multiplayer sequels also have to offer new things lest they get stale and bore the audience.
I am extremely skeptical about most people caring about the UI so much that they'd prioritize a revamp of it over actual content, old and new alike.
Well Sakurai might. No new UI and his wife has no work.
But also, if you have to misrepresent the development process, that's not a good look. You know this isn't how it works. We know this isn't how it works.
And "Smash will sell anyways!" is also a lame argument imo.
First off, if it just sells anyways, why put effort into it? A port with some new stuff would just about do.
They could half-ass it and get away with it, but only because of the effort originally put into it which earned them the clout and faith from the consumer. It's established itself as a reliable brand, with a loyal fanbase. However, if they start phoning it in, they risk damaging the series' high regard, and eventually that could affect sales adversely.
Nintendo is well aware that the value of their IP is their biggest asset, and that is maintained by ensuring the quality rarely dips. That's enabled them to make games for a fraction of the budget as their competitors yet sell the same or better, because of how big a draw their franchises remain, because of how doggedly they protect their IP's worth.
If they start coasting, the goodwill will keep them afloat for a bit, but eventually it will bleed into their bottom dollar. Look at Marvel.
If Pokemon the series started with Sword / Shield, those things would be pushing nowhere near what they do. They had years of acclaimed games insulating them for when the quality started to dip, because the brand is so strong.
And then, the next Smash doesn't just need to sell itself, but it also needs to sell the next console. Would it being a downgrade or even a sidegrade over the previous game that everyone already has do that better than it being a clear upgrade? I have my doubts.
Well it's going to do that much less successfully by offering another version of a game millions of people already own than something new.
That's a great point and a big reason why a deluxe version is less likely. Because not only does Smash need to sell, but Smash is a killer app. And people are less likely to buy something they already own, even if it's a different version, than something totally new.
I can agree with these arguments if the next game really shifts gears in terms of mechanics. Like, I dunno, they go fully 3d, or they add a lane-switching system a la Fatal Fury, or they add a third type of move over the "normal" and "special" ones to every character, etc. etc... That's something that you can sell as a new experience. Because it is.
But if the changes amount to essentially just adjustements to game speed and general hitstun like they've always done after Melee?... I think the times these kinds of changes necessitated a new game are over. Those are not radical changes at the end of the day. Nowadays they happen via patches and don't sacrifice content.
That would be a great point if this game was releasing on the same system as Ultimate. Though that didn't stop Splatoon.
But new games sell better than ports. Because more people want what they don't have than want another version of what they have.
It's also interesting that the genres you seem to be looking least at when proclaiming how things work these days are Smash's genres. Fighting games still regularly get sequels that cycle out the content. They do act more like a service, but a service that lasts a few years and then ends in anticipation of the next game. Party games still regularly get sequels that cycle out the content. I mean Mario Party has three games on Switch.
Mostly the same game as Ultimate with overall less content really isn't the console mover slam dunk most people here think it is. Especially when you consider that 1. The community at large absolutely loves Ultimate,
The community at large absolutely loves Smash. It's not the Ultimate community, it's the Smash community.
and 2. Half the world is in recession! You need very good reasons to buy a new console, one of the objectively lowest priority expenses a household can have.
Even more reason people wouldn't buy a game they already own another version of. Especially given Nintendo's gonna charge full price for it indefinitely.
I appreciate these counterpoints to your own argument. They weren't ones I thought of.
What do most people like about Smash? Its deep yet accesible gameplay (which they've already nailed), its large amounts of content and being able to play as your favorite videogame characters. That's where the focus should be for a mostly iterative sequel.
And guess what, a sequel will have all of that too. Smash 6 isn't going to have like, 25 characters. It'll undoubtably be the second highest roster in the series, though some of that will be through DLC.
So then you mix what people like about Smash with what gets more people to buy something: it being new. And, as you astutely observed, Smash will be a killer app, so it's even more important for Nintendo to focus on what brings people in. Which, between exclusives and ports, is much less likely to be the latter.
If Pokemon the series started with Sword / Shield, those things would be pushing nowhere near what they do. They had years of acclaimed games insulating them for when the quality started to dip, because the brand is so strong.
Only tangentially related, but I think Pokémon's next few games are going to be very important for the series as a whole. Pokémon Sword/Shield pissed a lot of people off, Pokémon Brilliant Diamond/Shining Pearl pissed them off even more, Pokémon Legends: Arceus brought some people back on board, but a lot of them still dismiss it as a glorified tech demo, and Pokémon Scarlet/Violet are probably the worst functioning Nintendo games ever. If Pokémon Legends Z-A doesn't improve on Pokémon Legends: Arceus's formula and Gen 10 also draws ire, sales for all subsequent entries will probably start to decline.
I feel like some dudes underestimate the fact that all people really need to see is a trailer with Master Chief and some Waluigi memes and they'll be down with the new Smash. It's not like they'll turn their nose up at a brand new Super Smash Bros because Young Link isn't on the roster.
Only tangentially related, but I think Pokémon's next few games are going to be very important for the series as a whole. Pokémon Sword/Shield pissed a lot of people off, Pokémon Brilliant Diamond/Shining Pearl pissed them off even more, Pokémon Legends: Arceus brought some people back on board, but a lot of them still dismiss it as a glorified tech demo, and Pokémon Scarlet/Violet are probably the worst functioning Nintendo games ever. If Pokémon Legends Z-A doesn't improve on Pokémon Legends: Arceus's formula and Gen 10 also draws ire, sales for all subsequent entries will probably start to decline.
If it does at least force more time to get games done, that's at least nice.
I still don't expect them to try cramming every Pokemon in outside of a special anniversary edition, though. It costs a crapload of development time to balance that many monsters. Porting over assets are also going to start to be an issue as new systems come up, because generally it only works to one Console Generation up(due to data becoming outdated, not just designs or models. It's part of why Mewtwo had to be done from scratch in Smash 4. Even the model, which you would think was compatible from, say, the Wii Pokemon game. But it wasn't either. Which is saying a lot in how hard data is to work with).
That said, Smash will suffer from this again, since EIH won't continue forever. Even if it happens again, or if the next game has its full roster return(though it'll still having missing veterans from Ultimate), we've pretty much already been shown it's unfeasible to keep up.
Then again, it's pretty hard to name a long-running series without cuts. Smash already has had them, so.
I feel like some dudes underestimate the fact that all people really need to see is a trailer with Master Chief and some Waluigi memes and they'll be down with the new Smash. It's not like they'll turn their nose up at a brand new Super Smash Bros because Young Link isn't on the roster.
I'll be a slight bit fair; there are going to be customers who are only in it for one specific character. If they aren't in, they ain't getting the game. But this is not remotely common and anyone pretending it is is being silly. Hell, I'm getting the next game anyway. Sure, I'll be sad about some cuts, but I understand that franchises... are normally doing this, heh.
I'll be a slight bit fair; there are going to be customers who are only in it for one specific character. If they aren't in, they ain't getting the game. But this is not remotely common and anyone pretending it is is being silly. Hell, I'm getting the next game anyway. Sure, I'll be sad about some cuts, but I understand that franchises... are normally doing this, heh.
Only tangentially related, but I think Pokémon's next few games are going to be very important for the series as a whole. Pokémon Sword/Shield pissed a lot of people off, Pokémon Brilliant Diamond/Shining Pearl pissed them off even more, Pokémon Legends: Arceus brought some people back on board, but a lot of them still dismiss it as a glorified tech demo, and Pokémon Scarlet/Violet are probably the worst functioning Nintendo games ever. If Pokémon Legends Z-A doesn't improve on Pokémon Legends: Arceus's formula and Gen 10 also draws ire, sales for all subsequent entries will probably start to decline.
I am hoping and praying and pissing that Gamefreak hires more people and take more time with their games. Z-A coming out next year instead of this holiday gives me a smidgen of hope.
At a time when, post Sword & Shield, my faith in the franchise was waning, Legends Arceus showed me that they could still make good ****. But with them attempting games that are bigger in scope, the three year cycle just isn't gonna cut it anymore.
You misread me, I know Xenoblade is first party, I was saying I added Mio so that Shadow was the only new third-party Echo in my prediction.
I could've gone with someone like Rock Howard, Zack Fair, or Proto Man instead, but I very much wanted to limit myself to just Shadow since I didn't want Dixie Kong to be the only new first-party Echo in my prediction.
That's pretty much what I'm outright saying. Your first post made it sound like B couldn't happen, that's all. XD
As for 2000's... not sure. I know we got some newer stuff like Astral Chain, so some of those general IP's, but admittedly I don't play a lot of new games, so.
...How did I misread that as 2020's. I'm tired. But yeah, I'm still not sure who is too likely. Problem is also that we're well past that time. Sure, I want Fulgore(and his reboot design is fine too), and you've got Isaac, Oracles Impa(notably this is the first game we see her do anything beyond be an exposition fairy. She really does nothing in OOT of physical feats. This continues throughout). The funny part is the Oracle games don't show her specifically fighting, but we know it's part of her characterization too, we just see her do remotely something, even if it's played mainly for laughs(but it's still evidence of her strength), and well, tons of Zelda characters introduced(Midna, Tingle from the normal Universe, Ghirahim, Demise, Groose, Beedle, and quite a few who are popular overall in either all regions or some, and that's not counting how HW gave many badass moments, like Agitha).
I guess I'll give my opinion : Obviously nintendo is going to try to add in as many characters as they can, it is the main selling point of the game. Sakurai and the development team is going to try to keep cuts to a minimum. I want EiH2, Sakurai wants EiH2, Nintendo wants EiH2, everyone wants EiH2. However, people honestly expecting that to happen need to temper their expectations.
1) Assuming it would just be a port of ult, they would still have to renegotiate licenses. People who think that initial negotiations covered potential ports are being silly, no company would ever license out their properties in perpetuity. We've gotten hints before that some of the licenses for ult were difficult to negotiate already, and sakurai has said EiH1 barely happened at all because of cloud and having to deal with squeenix.
2) Since ult released, ESRB rules changed concerning crossovers with M rated franchises has changed. They cant show the logo for M rated franchises without raising the rating of the game itself, like how they had to say Ezio instead of Assassin's Creed for the mii fighter trailer. This might really hurts the chances of characters from M rated games coming back at all, like Bayo and Joker.
3) Something similar happened before during the development of Brawl, where Iwata said that if Sakurai didn't come back to produce it then they would just port melee with online. Sakurai came back to make brawl, and I think it's just because he cares about the brand too much to do simple ports. At the end of the day sakurai loves what he does and wants to push the envelope, so as long as sakurai has any say over the series I doubt he's be willing to just do an ultimate deluxe.
4) Honestly, just my personal opinion but I think you get diminishing returns with so many characters. The color alts already have a hard time loading on the css, and some of the dlc reuse attack animations/properties from the base characters, I feel like if you want every character to stand out you need to trim the cast down a little. If we get a 100 character roster there is going to be some cut corners and moveset overlap, I'd much prefer a smaller cast with all the attention it deserves than a bloated cast that reuses animations and properties.
Again, not trying to hate or anything because I would really like EiH again. But I think beleiving it's the most likely outcome is setting yourself up for dissapointment. You should expect cuts and hopes for the best, and when your favorite glorgo comes back it's a pleasent surprise.
I mean are the front runners not Andy Advanced Wars and Isaac Golden Sun? They both have pretty good moveset potential, with andy commanding troops and Isaac's big magic hand (though after steve, i'm scared we'll get another projectile command grab...). I Kinda want fossil fighters just because I think a puppet fighter with a giant Trex would be cool. If they really want to get weird, I don't think anything embodies the early 2000's like Crazy Taxi, and I'd like to see a guy who drives a car for the whole fight and runs people over.
But my top pick from this era would have to be Cooking Mama. She's my number 1 "Plausible enough to bring up, but def never going to happen" choice.
You really don't want to address those questions, huh?
I know no one wants to lose the big roster, but I'm just trying to get around the obfuscation and get to some direct questions which on your end should be defensible if you believe Ultimate Deluxe wouldn't definitely sell worse than Smash 6.
To your point about absolutism, theoretically it's not impossible an Ultimate Deluxe sells better than a Smash 6, but based on how the market operates regarding new titles and ports, I fail to envision the scenario in which it does.
Because the people who make up the bulk of the consumer base aren't going to reject the next Smash if it's missing a chunk of its third-string and a few of the third-parties, so long as it retains most big faces and has hype newcomers. Smash's biggest consumer subset are the least discriminating.
And to that end, many of them will acknowledge that Ultimate and Ultimate Deluxe aren't the same, but they'll see it as an extension of what they have. Like how a console and its later "pro" version aren't the same, but many less discriminating, less invested, or more money conscious people skip the pro because they're fine with their model.
Which isn't to say an Ultimate Deluxe wouldn't still sell very well, it's still Smash, but this concerns which would perform better.
Ultimate is a magical game. We are truly blessed with the game that we got. Getting every character in one game was my dream game. It was the funny little hypothetical that would always make you smile. And then it happened and then we got a ton of banger newcomers on top of that. We have almost every stage. The gameplay is fantastic and the speed increase was a wonderful move. I'm a super Nintendo nerd, so the references in the spirit battles aren't lost on me. It truly feels like the ultimate Smash game, pun intended. There's so much content in this game and its so well made that I can still have fun playing its modes to this day. I'm not bored of it yet.
I know we're always talking about new stuff here. That's the point of the thread, but wow. We truly don't understand just how well we have it right now. Ultimate isn't appreciated enough in my opinion. Sakurai, the dev team, Nintendo and all of the companies involved made something truly special and is something I'll treasure for all of time.
Sure, there are a LOT of flaws, some of them major and frustrating. But what we got is truly special, and because of that, I... don't really want a brand new Smash game. I'd personally be satisfied if Ultimate was added onto and changed and improved forever. Sakurai was right when he said he might have put himself into a corner here. Anything after this is going to feel like a downgrade in some way. At least to me.
All that said, I'm not going to pretend that Ultimate Deluxe is happening. If the next system is backwards compatible (and I hope it is), there isn't much point porting any Switch game to a new console. I'd love a "complete package," where the DLC wouldn't have to be downloaded for preservation's sake, but Ultimate Deluxe isn't happening. I'd be more willing to believe another game where EIH is happening again (real slim chances there), then believe in Ultimate Deluxe.
People are going to buy Smash no matter what because its Smash, and it would take some MAJOR screw ups to not make a significant profit. And honestly, part of the reason why I personally cling onto Ultimate so much is because I expect the next Smash game to be radically different. If you advertise a very similar game with less stuff, people will start to feel frustrated. But a different, new kind of game with less stuff doesn't do that nearly as much. I expect the next Smash to have some sort of hook or gimmick to make it stand out from other games. The gimmick will probably be fun and I'll probably enjoy it, but I'm not even going to pretend to predict what it will be. I can't feel that excited for a gameplay change that I don't even know exists. Things like air dashes and level supers can be fun to discuss, but they aren't happening at the moment. I just expect the next Smash to be designed from the ground up to expand on this new gimmick. And that's where I think people are underestimating the amount of cuts there will be. Suddenly all those characters we take for granted are gone. Cuts by themselves aren't bad. I understand why they exist. Games can't go on forever. But I think a lot of characters people love will be gone. A lot of characters I love will be gone. I expect the roster to be around 40 - 55, counting echoes.
And well, that wouldn't be so bad if I didn't know that people would clown on the characters who got cut, ignoring the value and joy they brought. I know I shouldn't let other people's opinions bug me on that but Smash is really special to me. It already annoys me when people say "X is worthless." The next game is going to bring that out, tenfold. I dunno. I just can't really get excited for a new Smash at the moment. My most wanted characters are either already in, not getting in a smaller roster or simply aren't getting in anyways (RIP Lloyd, Crono, Phoenix, Isaac). There's Bandana Waddle Dee as a standout. I think he's got a good shot, but not on a small roster. I enjoy a lot of games, so other characters like Ring Fit Adventurer or the Astral Chain Hero would make me happy. Speculating and supporting those characters are fun. I like talking about possibilities. Even obscure ones (Zael my beloved) but I'm tired of people convincing themselves things are happening. I'm tired of cult threads. I have an aversion to certain characters now that I shouldn't have because their threads were THAT bad. It's not the character's fault and its not right, but its hard to get rid of those emotions entirely. A new game, especially one that's radically different with lots of cuts will only make that whole internet scene worse. And I hate saying this, but I think all of the third party "hype tourists" have made speculation exhausting. I love third party characters. They don't tarnish the game in the slightest and only make it better, but some fanbases can be real obnoxious when its clear they don't actually like Smash in the first place. I think the next game is going to be smaller in scope and I think the Ultimate DLC ballooned third party expectations to an absurd degree. We're getting a smaller cast and the speculation community is not going to take that well. Right now, its pretty chill, but during a full hype cycle? Hoo boy, its going to be rough.
I know a new one is coming soon, but because of all the reasons above, I'm just content with Ultimate for now. I'm not feeling that itch yet. I kinda want other Nintendo franchises to continue for a while so we can get more and more possibilities for newcomers, stages, items and assists. Maybe a reveal trailer will wow me. Maybe the gameplay hook will be so good, I'll be talking about it for days.
But for the first time, the idea of a new Smash game just fills me with... indifference?
Maybe I'm being cynical or just stuck in my ways, but I'm just speaking honestly right now. I know this isn't the popular opinion. I too share Mario Kart 8 fatigue and Ultimate is certainly starting to show its age in many ways (online please work). I get the desire for a new game. I'm just not feeling it right now.
Eh, people aren't always willing to defend their points. Which just means there's nothing to pursue conversation-wise. It's better to move on when someone just dodges the question. Either they can answer it, or are ignoring it, or don't know enough to give an actual answer. It doesn't matter which, nor is worth trying to wrestle an answer out of someone. If they don't want to talk about that part, then don't pursue it. People get frustrated for whatever reason. Sometimes some really can't figure out a good way to explain it. Though generally, if you can't, move on. It's better for everyone to step back in cases like that.
And yes, I don't like questions being dodged. It's not reasonable to deliberately do so. If you don't know the answer, it's even just easier to say that, so you won't be bugged by another user to keep finding it. It's okay to not know. We don't know everything. Not a big deal, you know?
Basically I'm suggesting to also move on, since this conversation quite clearly hit a dead end.
Honestly, I think that's a pretty good lineup for the Zelda series, and the more games reinclude Ganon and Impa again, the more they start to feel like big omissions from the Smash roster that should have been in a long time ago. Skyward Sword and A Link Between Worlds replanted the seeds back when they reintroduced those characters after their long absences, but they've been slowly inching in with more prominence again over time.
I've been liking these new memes fans been doing with Ganon and Zelda, and they've been trying new things with old Impa too from the looks of things in the new game. Hopefully the new game will do them both wonders.
Rethinking this all, and I think the classic Link could function as a Echo to Champion Link too. Just give him regular Bombs and, I dunno, make the Champion Link a little lighter and faster too. Faster Link has always been a better Link, except for in Melee but Young Link there had his own share of problems.
So separate the Champion Link with "Hero" Link by means of Echoes could work. And then give Hero Link alternative costumes based on the Heroes of Time and Twilight.
I don't know. In general I think there are characters that would warrant a different playstyle to be included in Smash anyway. Legendary veterans as Mario, Link and Samus for example. These are characters that always had clones or entire different Smash characters being them in essence anyway.
Anyway having 2 Links and 2 Ganons and cutting the second Zelda doesn't seem too right either. However I do think the line up of Link, Zelda, Ganondorf, Impa and Ganon stands the strongest out of all the Zelda cast. A second Link and a second Zelda could fill up a bit, but luckily we have them already. Could just be Toon Link and Sheik for all I care.
I mean are the front runners not Andy Advanced Wars and Isaac Golden Sun? They both have pretty good moveset potential, with andy commanding troops and Isaac's big magic hand (though after steve, i'm scared we'll get another projectile command grab...). I Kinda want fossil fighters just because I think a puppet fighter with a giant Trex would be cool. If they really want to get weird, I don't think anything embodies the early 2000's like Crazy Taxi, and I'd like to see a guy who drives a car for the whole fight and runs people over.
But my top pick from this era would have to be Cooking Mama. She's my number 1 "Plausible enough to bring up, but def never going to happen" choice.
I know we're always talking about new stuff here. That's the point of the thread, but wow. We truly don't understand just how well we have it right now. Ultimate isn't appreciated enough in my opinion. Sakurai, the dev team, Nintendo and all of the companies involved made something truly special and is something I'll treasure for all of time.
This sort of seems like when we get a requested newcomer and people then wonder why after all the time spent talking about them, they really stop becoming a point of conversation.
It's not that the character, or in this case, entire game, isn't greatly appreciated, it's that there's only so many times you can vocalize "wow, I can't believe x made it" before routine and time makes it implicit. I still think it's impressive they managed to get Cloud, let alone a bunch of newer additions.
And yes, there is some degree of getting accustomed to it, like how now people don't really bat an eye at characters like Sonic, Mega Man, etc. Nevertheless, I don't think anyone here disagrees with how stellar and somewhat unimaginable Ultimate is, and what an achievement its culmination is. I think it's just that... six years on, and three years after the content stopped, that feeling is just kind of unspoken. Much in the same way six years later, it'd be a little strange to still be going on about actually getting Ridley.
It's not an indictment against the previous game to look forward to what's next. If anything, it could be a testament to how much it was enjoyed that you're this excited for more.
Personally I'm very weary towards the idea of the next game being built from the ground up. It's not just the large amount of cuts that would hurt, it's the fact that I'd have to wait potentially another decade (and this is being optimistic) for the slightest chance of any of the characters I care about this point getting in. I would honestly just give up on speculation, period.
I know that sounds a bit selfish but it's my honest feelings. I know infinite growth isn't sustainable but neither is starting over every couple of games.
I'd only accept a major formula shakeup that warrants a smaller roster, if they plan to grow it back at a rapid pace. (And for the love of all that is good, please do not monkey paw me and have Smash become a straight up live service game please no.)
Personally I'm very weary towards the idea of the next game being built from the ground up. It's not just the large amount of cuts that would hurt, it's the fact that I'd have to wait potentially another decade (and this is being optimistic) for the slightest chance of any of the characters I care about this point getting in.
I know that sounds a bit selfish but it's my honest feelings. I know infinite growth isn't sustainable but neither is starting over every couple of games.
I'd only accept a major formula shakeup that warrants a smaller roster, if they plan to grow it back at a rapid pace. (And for the love of all that is good, please do not monkey paw me and have Smash become a straight up live service game please no.)
Well the amount of newcomers would probably stay the same (though the ratio of base to DLC might change), because they're a big selling and marketing point.
Rethinking this all, and I think the classic Link could function as a Echo to Champion Link too. Just give him regular Bombs and, I dunno, make the Champion Link a little lighter and faster too. Faster Link has always been a better Link, except for in Melee but Young Link there had his own share of problems.
So separate the Champion Link with "Hero" Link by means of Echoes could work. And then give Hero Link alternative costumes based on the Heroes of Time and Twilight.
I don't know. In general I think there are characters that would warrant a different playstyle to be included in Smash anyway. Legendary veterans as Mario, Link and Samus for example. These are characters that always had clones or entire different Smash characters being them in essence anyway.
Anyway having 2 Links and 2 Ganons and cutting the second Zelda doesn't seem too right either. However I do think the line up of Link, Zelda, Ganondorf, Impa and Ganon stands the strongest out of all the Zelda cast. A second Link and a second Zelda could fill up a bit, but luckily we have them already. Could just be Toon Link and Sheik for all I care.
I don't know if you saw a post of mine from a while, but Smash already treats Young Link as "Classic Link", so even that idea isn't too likely(to clarify, the first Zelda game is deliberately treated as Young Link being the same one. Pac-Man faces him in reference to Zelda 1, and the Spirit who represents Zelda 1 is Young Link as well. He also represents Ravio, but also is a supporting character specifically for the Oracle series games... which is the same Link as ALTTP, at least in the US. Meaning that Smash, yeah, treats him as Classic Link). Toon Link oddly has very few spirits in comparisons(though they're all toon game references anyway), and Link's only notable thing is oddly representing LA Link... who is in particular is supposed to be ALTTP Link. That said, it's probably most important to note that either way, Young Link is the representative for the first game in the franchise beyond just a Spirit. So, understandably, it makes sense why the term "Classic Link" is actually him. Especially as he represents the other Links more than even regular Link does. He also has the most Spirit Battles too, funnily enough.
Not that it's a bad one. I vastly would love a second adult Link, not in the case of removing a Child Link, but moreso than the current Link moveset feels a bit too deviated from. That way they can somewhat more fixup the new Link. That or maybe just go all in as a new Link, while slightly changing the current Link so he resembles more of his older options. It's kind of awkward, since we don't even know how many changes could even constitute losing an Echo label. Like, being a basic clone is one thing. Being an Echo is harder to justify unless their differences are still overall minor(Ken is an outlier, but his total list of changes is actually less than Dr. Mario, which is mainly why each one makes sense the way they're labeled in that regard. One is a hard limit of an Echo, while the other is the lowest amount a regular clone could be).
Personally I'm very weary towards the idea of the next game being built from the ground up. It's not just the large amount of cuts that would hurt, it's the fact that I'd have to wait potentially another decade (and this is being optimistic) for the slightest chance of any of the characters I care about this point getting in. I would honestly just give up on speculation, period.
I know that sounds a bit selfish but it's my honest feelings. I know infinite growth isn't sustainable but neither is starting over every couple of games.
I'd only accept a major formula shakeup that warrants a smaller roster, if they plan to grow it back at a rapid pace. (And for the love of all that is good, please do not monkey paw me and have Smash become a straight up live service game please no.)
It won't be built from the ground up. They're still going to use tons of the data, but a Smash 6 is not a port either even then. They can't feasibly make it a game full of tons of content without porting over specific assets. Even Smash 3DS had all of Brawl's data in it, showing they were going to use it as a starting point. We knew that Brawl used some Melee data too(though how much is unclear). Etc. While we don't know all the details, it's fairly common to use the old game as a starting point and then building onto it while not being an actual port.
Certain things may be built from the ground up(like the Stages in Ultimate were, but it's probably referring more to the programming, as they have to pull the assets from somewhere. Some stages weren't in 3DS or Wii U, so obviously their assets may not be even usable. Like Saffron City was likely redone from hard scratch instead of just programming. And we don't know how they worked with the assets either. For all we know, he really did redo everything about each stage. I just highly doubt none of the old textures weren't repurposed, but we don't legitimately have a good detailed explanation. That or it's very hard to find, due to being from a video and all).
It won't be built from the ground up. They're still going to use tons of the data, but a Smash 6 is not a port either even then. They can't feasibly make it a game full of tons of content without porting over specific assets. Even Smash 3DS had all of Brawl's data in it, showing they were going to use it as a starting point. We knew that Brawl used some Melee data too(though how much is unclear). Etc. While we don't know all the details, it's fairly common to use the old game as a starting point and then building onto it while not being an actual port.
Certain things may be built from the ground up(like the Stages in Ultimate were, but it's probably referring more to the programming, as they have to pull the assets from somewhere. Some stages weren't in 3DS or Wii U, so obviously their assets may not be even usable. Like Saffron City was likely redone from hard scratch into of just programming. And we don't know how they worked with the assets either. For all we know, he really did redo everything about each stage. I just highly doubt none of the old textures weren't repurposed, but we don't legitimately have a good detailed explanation. That or it's very hard to find, due to being from a video and all).
Apologies, I will admit Swamp's post did bring out some pessimism in me. Not his fault at all, but I've dealt with people on other, less courteous corners on the 'net in the recent past who were really insistent that the next Smash should be some drastic roster cut for "depth" reasons (which they usually never specify beyond "make everyone play like a DLC character"), so I'm pretty burnt on the idea.
I do think it is very much plausible to continue widening the scope of what game series/universes get added from where Ultimate left off, without EiH being a necessity (see: my roster prediction a few pages ago). And while I still hold by the opinion that Smash should never try a full-on live service/Mario Kart Tour system of adding new content, I do think people are potentially underestimating how in-depth the next game's post-launch support can be compared to previous games. Overall, I think the aim of the Smash team going forward is to play the long game (without letting things get dragged out arbitrarily). Given enough time, I could see the next installment surpassing Ultimate in content by the time the next system reaches its end of life.
That being said, I'd also accept Smash becoming a game that comes out later in a system's life if it means the games come out meaty in content on average.
Also funny you mention all of the stages in Ultimate. I wouldn't be surprised if most of them being rebuilt and updated was done with a long-term intent. Do all the heavy work with updating the stages now, so that they'll be easily reusable next time.
I'll be real, this feels like a poor excuse. Yes, I know the internet has places that are awful, just look at any gathering of Star Wars fans, but that doesn't mean you can't strive to be better. Smash Bros fans have a tendency to get upset of the tiniest things and this thread has been the perfect highlight of that. Getting angry over wether people think it should be a port or sequel? Arguing over character designs and alts? Smash Bros discussion should be fun, not tedious.
Apologies, I will admit Swamp's post did bring out some pessimism in me. Not his fault at all, but I've dealt with people on other, less courteous corners on the 'net in the recent past who were really insistent that the next Smash should be some drastic roster cut for "depth" reasons (which they usually never specify beyond "make everyone play like a DLC character"), so I'm pretty burnt on the idea.
I do think it is very much plausible to continue widening the scope of what game series/universes get added from where Ultimate left off, without EiH being a necessity (see: my roster prediction a few pages ago). And while I still hold by the opinion that Smash should never try a full-on live service/Mario Kart Tour system of adding new content, I do think people are potentially underestimating how in-depth the next game's post-launch support can be compared to previous games. Overall, I think the aim of the Smash team going forward is to play the long game (without letting things get dragged out arbitrarily). Given enough time, I could see the next installment surpassing Ultimate in content by the time the next system reaches its end of life.
That being said, I'd also accept Smash becoming a game that comes out later in a system's life if it means the games come out meaty in content on average.
Also funny you mention all of the stages in Ultimate. I wouldn't be surprised if most of them being rebuilt and updated was done with a long-term intent. Do all the heavy work with updating the stages now, so that they'll be easily reusable next time.
True point on the Stages. They're much better updated with better programming.
...Sadly this means any not brought back could be in danger. D:
Anyway, I saw the roster. And that's all I really want to say on that, since after a certain point, I don't feel the need to rehash on rosters if they do cuts I don't find realistic. It's not personal or anything, I just find it pointless in saying it over and over again, heh.
Completely unsure if this is a hot take or not, I'd actually be down for a completely rebooted (for lack of a better term) list of stages barring maybe 20 or so really good ones in Ultimate to be kept.
There are so many different Nintendo series with so many interesting locales just begging to be made into Smash levels with the right design. Mario, Kirby, and DK stand out the most for lacking more out there settings but I'm sure numerous fans of other first party franchises have their own ideas for what could really stand out if given the spotlight in Smash 6.
Only tangentially related, but I think Pokémon's next few games are going to be very important for the series as a whole. Pokémon Sword/Shield pissed a lot of people off, Pokémon Brilliant Diamond/Shining Pearl pissed them off even more, Pokémon Legends: Arceus brought some people back on board, but a lot of them still dismiss it as a glorified tech demo, and Pokémon Scarlet/Violet are probably the worst functioning Nintendo games ever. If Pokémon Legends Z-A doesn't improve on Pokémon Legends: Arceus's formula and Gen 10 also draws ire, sales for all subsequent entries will probably start to decline.
you know all the talk about Sword and Shield pissing people off ignores one important fact. they're the second best selling games in the series behind the original games. the people who were pissed off are in the minority
True point on the Stages. They're much better updated with better programming.
...Sadly this means any not brought back could be in danger. D:
Anyway, I saw the roster. And that's all I really want to say on that, since after a certain point, I don't feel the need to rehash on rosters if they do cuts I don't find realistic. It's not personal or anything, I just find it pointless in saying it over and over again, heh.
In terms of the handful of stages not in Ultimate, I'd say there's always the freak chance Rainbow Road comes back, in light of that course getting a proper HD makeover thanks to 8 Deluxe's booster course pass. Some others like Sector Z and Planet Zebes from 64 wouldn't be tall orders, either.
When it comes to Pac-Maze, I think it'd be best for them to just take the general concept and go in a different direction with it. We've had multiple Yoshi's Islands, Kongo Jungles, and Peach's Castles across the series, so I don't see the harm in a brand new Pac-Maze next game.
And fair enough on the roster, I won't press matters on which cuts you found unrealistic if you don't want me to (though I will say that's definitely a criticism I haven't really gotten until now when it comes to my rosters, lol)
In terms of the handful of stages not in Ultimate, I'd say there's always the freak chance Rainbow Road comes back, in light of that course getting a proper HD makeover thanks to 8 Deluxe's booster course pass. Some others like Sector Z and Planet Zebes from 64 wouldn't be tall orders, either.
When it comes to Pac-Maze, I think it'd be best for them to just take the general concept and go in a different direction with it. We've had multiple Yoshi's Islands, Kongo Jungles, and Peach's Castles across the series, so I don't see the harm in a brand new Pac-Maze next game.
And fair enough on the roster, I won't press matters on which cuts you found unrealistic if you don't want me to (though I will say that's definitely a criticism I haven't really gotten until now when it comes to my rosters, lol)
Well, my messages say it a lot, but I'll elaborate enough that Sheik has no real chance of being cut, but especially not having her moveset taken by Impa, who has too many differences. Likewise, we know they will never replace a character just to outright move the moveset over. This didn't happen with Toon Link either, who was there solely because he was a Child Link. The moveset is quite different from Young Link's and it can't even be simply called a graphical upgrade for the same reason. Besides that, Sheik's role is a very awesome veteran ninja character who started off as being the second Zelda character to be revealed of all time. That's pretty significant that a one-off has this. And it's emphasized a bit more in Ultimate by directly keeping the reveal order, despite no longer being relevant. But otherwise, Impa is so completely different that she can't be the same kind of ninja anyway(just like Greninja isn't). Impa I do think has a chance to get in either way, but it won't be at the cost of any Zelda character either. The only ones, really, who are in danger are the Child Links(but only one of them. I don't remember if you cut both, but we're definitely keeping one anyway).
Otherwise, I've seen some rosters suggest Villager has any remote chance of being cut, despite being the main character. They're a mainstay(Isabelle is too, and she has no real chance of being cut either, unless it was hard reduced to 1 character, which isn't realistic, obviously. But yeah, they chose specific characters to represent a series first for a reason. If it was always about the mascot, we'd have Tom Nook, not Villager. But... nope. I know you didn't cut Villager, but you get the idea, since this is generally speaking on something I find unrealistic about rosters in general).
(It was clear you weren't aware of these stuff I said, so it's only fair to speak on them so you know why I hold those views). Though to quickly say it, Sheik is a mainstay, we're keeping a Child Link, and Villager is a 100% safe returner. If that makes sense. But yes, it's not "directed at you" specifically, just general weird rosters that ignore some key things about why characters were chosen. That said, a Child Link is the only one who I do think has any remote chance of a cut, but that's due to us not knowing a very good future for either character, so we're in a limbo of what is going to happen. On the other hand, we could get the latest younger Link design from Link's Awakening as a newcomer too, so eh. Maybe that's the future. Maybe not.
But moving on, yeah, I want more old ones. Sector Z is a funny one, because it's still ultimately a different stage from Corneria. It has a different overall size(which affects battles) and less hazards too(though that said, it probably would get Star Fox Easter Eggs?). Planet Zebes is also pretty different from Brinstar, but there's no denying they're a similar concept. I think this could be because both Star Fox and Metroid weren't nearly as massive series in general, so they didn't get chosen for past stages as easily. Also, Peach's Castle skipped two games first, so it's not too great of an example. The rest, though, yeah, definitely. Especially when some clearly are similar layouts at times. Yoshi's Story is clearly Super Happy Tree but with less of an overall platform set, for instance. Obviously FD and BF Modes don't count. I know that Mushroom Kingdom in 64 and Melee are somewhat similar for another one, but they still function pretty differently.
Overall, the only stages that really are redundant is mainly Final Destination throughout the series(though they have minor gameplay factors) and Battlefield(same as FD). Which says a lot about how things do keep getting cool updates and differences. They all have their own vibe/feel, and that's what makes it great that they don't just recycle the same thing over and over again.
you know all the talk about Sword and Shield pissing people off ignores one important fact. they're the second best selling games in the series behind the original games. the people who were pissed off are in the minority
Controversy spread awareness ("no such thing as bad publicity").
In all honesty I don't think Pokémon Sword/Shield damaged the IPs reputation too too much. The Pokémon Community was upset because they were lied to, but if the games afterward were good then people would have gotten over it quickly, especially with them being genuinely good (if very flawed) games. Pokémon Brilliant Diamond/Shining Pearl being worse than Pokémon Platinum was another problem, Pokémon Legends: Arceus lacking polish was another, but I would imagine the more casual audiences still enjoyed them. Pokémon Scarlet/Violet being held together with duct tape and a prayer is likely where the casual market is going to start getting upset. IIRC, they still sold extremely well, but will the next games? Yeah probably, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't do as extremely well as the games on the Switch.
Controversy spread awareness ("no such thing as bad publicity").
In all honesty I don't think Pokémon Sword/Shield damaged the IPs reputation too too much. The Pokémon Community was upset because they were lied to, but if the games afterward were good then people would have gotten over it quickly, especially with them being genuinely good (if very flawed) games. Pokémon Brilliant Diamond/Shining Pearl being worse than Pokémon Platinum was another problem, Pokémon Legends: Arceus lacking polish was another, but I would imagine the more casual audiences still enjoyed them. Pokémon Scarlet/Violet being held together with duct tape and a prayer is likely where the casual market is going to start getting upset. IIRC, they still sold extremely well, but will the next games? Yeah probably, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't do as extremely well as the games on the Switch.
I’ve never understood people complaining about being lied to when it comes to these games. Of course they lied, that’s what marketing is.
but I think you’re missing the point. It’s not that sword and shield sold well it’s that they’re the second best selling in the series. That is a lofty position to hold and you don’t achieve it through people wanting to see how bad something is. These games sold better than than every game the fandom say they have no complaints about. The Pokemon fandom complains a lot but they always blow everything out of proportion so it’s hard to take them seriously. Legends lacks polish? So do so many other games that they don’t complain about. Gen 9 held together by duct tape and prayer? Players who experienced game breaking bugs are the vocal minority most of us just had graphical problems no worse than anything else
