Official Next Smash - Speculation & Discussion Thread

[fogbadge]

These are some big brain picks for more Disney reps in the future smash games

Hey Smash Bros fans you guys wanna check this one out these are technically viable Disney reps as their games released before the movies. pic.twitter.com/eIrpIsU53E

— Axem Red ㋡ (@RedAxem) May 29, 2022

yes theyre completely viable cause its not like the films were in development long before and the games were made solely to promote the movies

 

[osby]

yes theyre completely viable cause its not like the films were in development long before and the games were made solely to promote the movies

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that, tbh. It's more like a joke about "technicalities".

 

[HyperSomari64]

There is a lot of media that parodies and/or pays homage to video games like Wreck-It Ralph or Scott Pilgrim vs The World. (Heck, there are video games with that thematic like the Neptunia franchise).

This loophole makes me feels bad, because since their 4th Party nature, the implications worries me for include those characters to Smash (It says a dude who unironically wants Miko Kutoba for Smash).

 

[JOJONumber691]

I guess it's like Bravely Default being considered its own thing despite lifting classes directly from the Job-based Final Fantasy titles and Default and Second having elements directly from an actual FF spinoff.

Honestly, and this is coming from a huge Kingdom Hearts fan, Kingdom Hearts is just a Disney themed Spin-Off of Final Fantasy. It lifts most Magic, uses a lot of tropes of the series, and features plenty of characters from the Final Fantasy Series, as well as a story not dissimilar to that of your typical Final Fantasy past V. Not to mention it’s been starting to appear in more and more Final Fantasy crossover games via special events. Three alone in Brave Exvius. So I can safely say that Kingdom Hearts is basically a spin-off of Final Fantasy themed around Disney, far more than Mana or Bravely.

 

[fogbadge]

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that, tbh. It's more like a joke about "technicalities".

are you sure? Cause a joke is supposed to be a witticism or play on words. Something to create a spontaneous burst of laughter. So it can’t have been a joke cause I didn’t laugh

 

[osby]

are you sure? Cause a joke is supposed to be a witticism or play on words. Something to create a spontaneous burst of laughter. So it can’t have been a joke cause I didn’t laugh

Yes, I'm sure nobody appointed you specifically as the sole judge of comedy.

 

[fogbadge]

Yes, I'm sure nobody appointed you specifically as the sole judge of comedy.

note to self: people on this forum don’t know British sitcoms

 

[dream1ng]

So it's safe to assume that Nintendo owns Boshi right? I know they must but it's never talked about. Despite Boshi falling into the realm of a Square original creation for the infamous game where they retained said characters I still can't imagine them being able to own what is essentially still Yoshi. If so it'd be really cool if Boshi could be an echo of Yoshi.

I don't think Nintendo owns any characters in that game who debuted in that game, including derivatives of existing species like Boshi or Toadofsky. But the thing is, I doubt Square can use them either without Nintendo signing off. I think those characters are just in limbo unless both parties are on board.

 

[DarthEnderX]

Regarding acquisitions rumors: most of them are driven by fanboyism and platform warring. Notice how it's always about Sony/Microsoft buying someone, but never other giants like NetEase or Tencent who have been just as busy scooping up publishers.

Well, yeah. It's natural that an acquisition matters less to people if it's not going to result in console exclusivity.

If the only thing that's changing is the name on the box, who cares?

note to self: people on this forum don’t know British sitcoms

Unless it's Monty Python or IT Crowd, nerds don't know it.

 

[fogbadge]

Unless it's Monty Python or IT Crowd, nerds don't know it.

talk about missing out

 

[Diddy Kong]

I think it's honestly unthinkable the next Smash doesn't build up from Ultimate, wether it's the engine or a straight up DX version as talked about before.

I also think it's entirely possible to have both a new (rebooted) Smash, and a Smash Ultimate DX on the same system. The Ultimate DX game being there for those who prefer it over the new direction a new Smash would / could take.

Smash makes lots of money after all, and is a system seller. To me it seems logical, as nothing can ever top Ultimate, in Sakurai's own words, but the franchise has to move forward at some point. So why not do both ? And make two games?

 

[MasterCheef]

I think it's honestly unthinkable the next Smash doesn't build up from Ultimate, wether it's the engine or a straight up DX version as talked about before.

I also think it's entirely possible to have both a new (rebooted) Smash, and a Smash Ultimate DX on the same system. The Ultimate DX game being there for those who prefer it over the new direction a new Smash would / could take.

Smash makes lots of money after all, and is a system seller. To me it seems logical, as nothing can ever top Ultimate, in Sakurai's own words, but the franchise has to move forward at some point. So why not do both ? And make two games?

The real question behind a upgraded ultimate is really due to licensing. did Nintendo make the contracts so they could have the licensing to put the characters into more than 1 smash game. Personally i would much rather see a much smaller cast with a lot more work put into making all movesets effective w/o being OP. I think a base roster of 20-24 characters next game with some key changes would be the best.

1 MINIMALIZE INPUT LAG

2 replace (_ air jumps ) with ( Air Dashes _)

3 add a powerful forward air meter which gets charged by doing damage

4 In 1V1s Player fighters should always turn around to face 1 opponent when standing still

5 Move Titles: ( Supper Sudden Death ) and ( Ready Go) to the screen’s top

6 Give big stages their own ( seperate list + seperate random pick )

7 Taunt Fixes = Make Best taunts be up taunt & give better taunts

8 C stick default = tilt attacks

 

[Diddy Kong]

The real question behind a upgraded ultimate is really due to licensing. did Nintendo make the contracts so they could have the licensing to put the characters into more than 1 smash game. Personally i would much rather see a much smaller cast with a lot more work put into making all movesets effective w/o being OP. I think a base roster of 20-24 characters next game with some key changes would be the best.

1 MINIMALIZE INPUT LAG

2 replace (_ air jumps ) with ( Air Dashes _)

3 add a powerful forward air meter which gets charged by doing damage

4 In 1V1s Player fighters should always turn around to face 1 opponent when standing still

5 Move Titles: ( Supper Sudden Death ) and ( Ready Go) to the screen’s top

6 Give big stages their own ( seperate list + seperate random pick )

7 Taunt Fixes = Make Best taunts be up taunt & give better taunts

8 C stick default = tilt attacks

I fail to see how cutting that many characters is anything close to a good idea, let alone a sane one.

What is to be gained exactly ?

Smash Ultimate is also the most balanced Smash game to date, so even that point it totally moot.

A smaller roster is nowhere an indication of a better game, or a better balanced game. Ultimate has better balance than Melee, maybe even Smash 64. And it has many times more characters.

This is what I really don't get about these reboot fanatics. I couldn't even picture a roster that small anymore. Any such drastic cuts wouldn't be received well for a game series so famous about the fact many peoples favorite character is in.

Anything below 70 at this point is not realistic to me honestly.

 

[RileyXY1]

I fail to see how cutting that many characters is anything close to a good idea, let alone a sane one.

What is to be gained exactly ?

Smash Ultimate is also the most balanced Smash game to date, so even that point it totally moot.

A smaller roster is nowhere an indication of a better game, or a better balanced game. Ultimate has better balance than Melee, maybe even Smash 64. And it has many times more characters.

This is what I really don't get about these reboot fanatics. I couldn't even picture a roster that small anymore. Any such drastic cuts wouldn't be received well for a game series so famous about the fact many peoples favorite character is in.

Anything below 70 at this point is not realistic to me honestly.

Some people, like myself, just prefer smaller rosters. This game doesn't need to surpass Ultimate, and it doesn't have to. It can go in a completely new direction. It might piss off some fans, but that's not really a problem.

 

[Megadoomer]

The real question behind a upgraded ultimate is really due to licensing. did Nintendo make the contracts so they could have the licensing to put the characters into more than 1 smash game. Personally i would much rather see a much smaller cast with a lot more work put into making all movesets effective w/o being OP. I think a base roster of 20-24 characters next game with some key changes would be the best.

If history is any indication, the drawbacks would massively outweigh the benefits - look at games like Street Fighter V's launch reception (it took three or four seasons of DLC, a story mode, and an arcade mode that's six different arcade modes combined to make up for it), or Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite with the whole "they're just functions!" discourse.

It seems unlikely that the competitive crowd would be pleased, or find every character to be competitively viable (there'd always be a handful of characters who are more effective than the others, so they'd likely be drawn towards those characters and virtually ignore the rest), and from a casual standpoint, having a roster that's less than a quarter of the previous game's roster (if we're talking about the 20 character roster) is going to turn people away in droves. (especially since there'd be even less veterans, given that some newcomers seem guaranteed)

I can't see anyone looking at the reception to "Everyone is Here!" or big DLC reveals like Banjo, Sora, Steve, etc., and deciding that people will be satisfied with a line-up like this for the next game:

...and even with 24 characters, it's not much of a change:

With such a ridiculously massive downgrade (about 65 characters being cut at the absolute minimum), it's tough enough to fit newcomers in there, let alone a decent amount of first party franchises or any third party franchises. (and if I tried to fit third party characters into the line-up, then say goodbye to series' mainstays like Ness, Captain Falcon, or possibly even Fox)

Smash has grown a lot since Melee, and it seems like cutting the roster down to a size that's even smaller than Melee's roster would alienate a lot of fans, myself included. I can't imagine how annoying it would have to be to wait through the Nintendo Directs after the release of a game like that, hoping that maybe they'll announce series' mainstays like Peach, Yoshi, or Meta Knight as DLC, or maybe they'll bring back fan favourite characters like Sonic, Mega Man, or Banjo and Kazooie. (not knowing for sure if third parties are even possible or not this time around)

Crossover fighting games live or die by their rosters - look at the likes of PlayStation All Stars, King of Fighters 12, or Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite. Even within Smash, the few cuts that we've got (especially unique characters like Snake, the Ice Climbers, or Mewtwo) had a ton of people wanting to see them return, and Smash has barely cut any characters up to this point. ( and in the base game - not counting Lucas, who came back as DLC in Smash 4 after being cut for the base game, that's ten in total, with many of them being clones or semi-clones)

Cutting sixty five characters would be met with vitriol among the fandom no matter who gets cut, and cutbacks that drastic seem like the sort of thing that would outright kill a franchise.

 

[RileyXY1]

If history is any indication, the drawbacks would massively outweigh the benefits - look at games like Street Fighter V's launch reception (it took three or four seasons of DLC, a story mode, and an arcade mode that's six different arcade modes combined to make up for it), or Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite with the whole "they're just functions!" discourse.

It seems unlikely that the competitive crowd would be pleased, or find every character to be competitively viable (there'd always be a handful of characters who are more effective than the others, so they'd likely be drawn towards those characters and virtually ignore the rest), and from a casual standpoint, having a roster that's less than a quarter of the previous game's roster (if we're talking about the 20 character roster) is going to turn people away in droves. (especially since there'd be even less veterans, given that some newcomers seem guaranteed)

I can't see anyone looking at the reception to "Everyone is Here!" and deciding that people will be satisfied with a line-up like this for the next game:
View attachment 353598

...and even with 24 characters, it's not much of a change:

View attachment 353599

With such a ridiculously massive downgrade (about 65 characters being cut at the absolute minimum), it's tough enough to fit newcomers in there, let alone a decent amount of first party franchises or any third party franchises.

Smash has grown a lot since Melee, and it seems like cutting the roster down to a size that's even smaller than Melee's roster would alienate a lot of fans, myself included. I can't imagine how annoying it would have to be to wait through the Nintendo Directs after the release of a game like that, hoping that maybe they'll announce series' mainstays like Peach, Yoshi, or Meta Knight as DLC.

Crossover fighting games live or die by their rosters - look at the likes of PlayStation All Stars, King of Fighters 12, or Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite. Even within Smash, the few cuts that we've got (especially unique characters like Snake, the Ice Climbers, or Mewtwo) had a ton of people wanting to see them return, and Smash has barely cut any characters up to this point. ( and in the base game - not counting Lucas, who came back as DLC in Smash 4 after being cut for the base game, that's ten in total, with many of them being clones or semi-clones) Cutting sixty five characters would be met with vitriol among the fandom no matter who gets cut.

But sometimes there's no way forward but down. Do you want the roster to get so big that balancing becomes impossible? There's a reason why the National Dex had to go in the Pokemon series, and Smash might be forced to do the same thing. I'm all in favor of cutting the roster down and trimming the fat.

 

[Megadoomer]

But sometimes there's no way forward but down. Do you want the roster to get so big that balancing becomes impossible? There's a reason why the National Dex had to go in the Pokemon series, and Smash might be forced to do the same thing.

It's not like the roster has to go to one extreme (100+ characters) or another (less characters than what Melee had 20+ years ago). I understand that cuts are likely going to happen, but there's a difference between "a few characters are going to be considered low-priority, with the clones likely being among them" and "let's burn this roster (and this franchise) to the ground!"

I get that some characters aren't going to stick around if they aren't obligated to return thanks to Everyone Is Here (I feel like at least one or two Fire Emblem characters, Pichu, and Young Link won't be returning, for example), or licensing issues (unless they've guaranteed Sora for the next game when negotiating for him here, getting Disney to cooperate again feels like a "lightning strikes twice" situation), but the roster could be cut down to seventy, sixty, or even fifty veterans, add some newcomers, and people would probably understand.

Cutting the roster down to 20 (with that number including newcomers), on the other hand, seems like it would cause the game to get even more hate than Brawl did with its intentional tripping mechanic.

 

[RileyXY1]

It's not like the roster has to go to one extreme (100+ characters) or another (less characters than what Melee had 20+ years ago). I understand that cuts are likely going to happen, but there's a difference between "a few characters are going to be considered low-priority, with the clones likely being among them" and "let's burn this roster (and this franchise) to the ground!"

I get that some characters aren't going to stick around if they aren't obligated to return thanks to Everyone Is Here (I feel like at least one or two Fire Emblem characters, Pichu, and Young Link won't be returning, for example), or licensing issues (unless they've guaranteed Sora for the next game when negotiating for him here, getting Disney to cooperate again feels like a "lightning strikes twice" situation), but the roster could be cut down to sixty or seventy characters, add some newcomers, and people would probably understand.

Cutting the roster down to 20 (with that line-up including newcomers), on the other hand, seems like it would cause the game to get even more hate than Brawl did with its intentional tripping mechanic.

A 20 character roster is too extreme for me. I'm suggesting a Brawl sized roster of about 35, give or take. That's perfect in my opinion.

 

[Hadokeyblade]

Honestly, and this is coming from a huge Kingdom Hearts fan, Kingdom Hearts is just a Disney themed Spin-Off of Final Fantasy. It lifts most Magic, uses a lot of tropes of the series, and features plenty of characters from the Final Fantasy Series, as well as a story not dissimilar to that of your typical Final Fantasy past V. Not to mention it’s been starting to appear in more and more Final Fantasy crossover games via special events. Three alone in Brave Exvius. So I can safely say that Kingdom Hearts is basically a spin-off of Final Fantasy themed around Disney, far more than Mana or Bravely.

It's funny when you remember that the place they picked for Sora's stage is the KH equivalent to the world of FF7 since Cloud and the gang all live there.

From the beginning i laughed at the fact that Final fantasy went from having very little representation in 4 to having 3 characters and 3 stages in Ultimate.

 

[Megadoomer]

A 20 character roster is too extreme for me. I'm suggesting a Brawl sized roster of about 35, give or take. That's perfect in my opinion.

It still seems extreme to me; then again, I've gone through two cases where my main was cut from one game to the next (Mewtwo in Brawl; Snake in Smash 4), so I know how frustrating it can be to lose a character that you enjoyed playing as, with nobody in the roster even coming close to playing like how they did.

And that was with a relatively low amount of cuts per game, so I was just unlucky - cutting more than half of the roster means that countless other people will have to deal with that sort of annoyance and frustration. (not to mention the sort of trolls who would take a character being cut as "proof" that they don't belong in Smash, or that they were a "wasted slot", or other garbage like that)

Even when I try to make a 35 character roster and add in some newcomers while keeping some third party characters...

...it still feels limited, like it's missing a lot. (I can't see Smash dropping third party characters entirely, and I have no idea why people think that they should)

 

[Geno Boost]

Cutting down the roster would hurt the sales of smash game especially removing 3rd parties I may not even buy it I would just stick with ultimate or Crusade or PM EX remix, games sequels are supposed to be an upgrade not downgrade

 

[RileyXY1]

Cutting down the roster would hurt the sales of smash game especially removing 3rd parties I may not even buy it I would just stick with ultimate or Crusade or PM EX remix, games sequels are supposed to be an upgrade not downgrade

You can tell that to Pokemon Sword and Shield. That game became the best selling Pokemon game outside of the Pokemania era despite cutting about half of the Pokemon from the game entirely.

 

[Geno Boost]

You can tell that to Pokemon Sword and Shield. That game became the best selling Pokemon game outside of the Pokemania era despite cutting about half of the Pokemon from the game entirely.

Crossover games are different as it’s not just one fanbase take a look at what happened to MVCI

 

[RileyXY1]

Crossover games are different as it’s not just one fanbase take a look at what happened to MVCI

That wasn't due to the cuts themselves, but the piss poor reasoning that the devs gave to justify them.

 

[Boorepellent]

You can tell that to Pokemon Sword and Shield. That game became the best selling Pokemon game outside of the Pokemania era despite cutting about half of the Pokemon from the game entirely.

1. SwSh did not cut the Pokemon for balance reasons, so just clearing that up. (We know this because they added many of the cut pokes back in and they always had the ability to limit which pokemon are usable in tournaments and online play anyway.)

2. It was popular because it was the first new mainline game since Pokemon Go came out AND the Switch has a much larger player base. (Not a remake like LGPE.)

3. The Pokemon series is not relevant to this discussion. Different genres, different fanbases. (Sure, there's some overlap, but what works for an RPG may not work for a Fighting game.)

 

[RileyXY1]

1. SwSh did not cut the Pokemon for balance reasons, so just clearing that up. (We know this because they added many of the cut pokes back in and they always had the ability to limit which pokemon are usable in tournaments and online play anyway.)

2. It was popular because it was the first new mainline game since Pokemon Go came out AND the Switch has a much larger player base. (Not a remake like LGPE.)

3. The Pokemon series is not relevant to this discussion. Different genres, different fanbases. (Sure, there's some overlap, but what works for an RPG may not work for a Fighting game.)

But still, there's massive problems with just expanding the roster forever and ever. Eventually it will reach a point where balancing becomes completely impossible due to the massive amount of roster bloat. Eventually they will have to do a massive downsize of the roster size to better create a more balanced and fun environment.

 

[Boorepellent]

But still, there's massive problems with just expanding the roster forever and ever. Eventually it will reach a point where balancing becomes completely impossible due to the massive amount of roster bloat. Eventually they will have to do a massive downsize of the roster size to better create a more balanced and fun environment.

I mean, Ultimate is pretty well balanced as far as platform fighters go. I agree, the roster can't grow forever.

That being said, I'd be down for a "Super Street Fighter Turbo Tournament Edition" situation, as unrealistic as that might be. Just keep adding onto this one, y'know?

 

[RileyXY1]

I mean, Ultimate is pretty well balanced as far as platform fighters go. I agree, the roster can't grow forever.

That being said, I'd be down for a "Super Street Fighter Turbo Tournament Edition" situation, as unrealistic as that might be. Just keep adding onto this one, y'know?

I wouldn't be happy with an Ultimate Deluxe. I want to see a completely new Smash with a smaller roster but a great deal of gameplay tweaks and redesigned movesets to the point where some of the vets feel like newcomers. That's what I want.

 

[Opossum]

For what it's worth, even as someone who firmly believes they're not doing Everyone Is Here again (based on things Sakurai himself has said and all that), I also can't see the next game having fewer veterans than base game Smash 4's starting roster count (so no fewer than 51 veterans).

 

[Yamat08]

Incidentally, how hard is it to balance a large roster of characters, really? I mean, sure, for each one addition to the roster, you needs to see how they'd compare to the rest of the extent roster (which at this point would mean conducting over 80 different types of match-ups, assuming they kept Ultimate's roster going forward). However, for Ultimate, they had actual competitive Smash players do the testing, if I recall correctly. Maybe it could be pulled off a lot easier if they have more people to put in the work, which could be another thing that could come down to having a higher budget.

I never look into MUGEN much, but considering it has a roster that's effectively infinite, constantly expanded upon through fan-made submissions, is balance constantly an issue for that game?

Well, we do know that Ultimate itself had its engine updated to allow for Steve to mine the stages, so you have some point there. That said, I'm more in favor of just retaining all (if not just 85-95%) of the characters and stages. There's a lot of things about Ultimate that I won't miss if they were cut, like the horribly repetitive Adventure Mode. And I actually appreciate that Classic Mode in each Smash is different from the last. I'd also like to see Spirits be revamped so that they at least have the descriptions that made trophies so fun; just make them "Spirit Cards".

Oh yeah, I could see things like World of Light being decisively unique to Ultimate, and maybe even the way the Spirits function (though I'm sure we'll still get some kind of collectible representing a wide expanse of things across Nintendo's history, whether they have an actual gameplay purpose or not). Though honestly, I also wouldn't mind an expansion-type sequel if it means that all the things I did in Ultimate could be transferred over to the next game (essentially sparing me of character unlocks and the more difficult collectibles). But so long as 100%ing a game isn't made as freakishly hard as Smash WiiU was, I think I could deal with it.

 

[Megadoomer]

Incidentally, how hard is it to balance a large roster of characters, really? I mean, sure, for each one addition to the roster, you needs to see how they'd compare to the rest of the extent roster (which at this point would mean conducting over 80 different types of match-ups, assuming they kept Ultimate's roster going forward). However, for Ultimate, they had actual competitive Smash players do the testing, if I recall correctly. Maybe it could be pulled off a lot easier if they have more people to put in the work, which could be another thing that could come down to having a higher budget.

I never look into MUGEN much, but considering it has a roster that's effectively infinite, constantly expanded upon through fan-made submissions, is balance constantly an issue for that game?

I'm not sure if Mugen's the best example to go on - rather than there being a handful of people working together, it's thousands of people (at least) each creating characters independently, with some trying to be balanced and reasonable (look into TMNT X Justice League or Hyper Dragon Ball Z, for example), while others are in an arms race to create the most broken character imaginable. (I feel like I should put a seizure warning, but stuff like this is just the tip of the iceberg)

 

[Sucumbio]

For what it's worth, even as someone who firmly believes they're not doing Everyone Is Here again (based on things Sakurai himself has said and all that), I also can't see the next game having fewer veterans than base game Smash 4's starting roster count (so no fewer than 51 veterans).

This. Every fighting game I know of (so not bb for instance) keeps 80 percent of their roster because many mains demand their main return or they stop playing.

 

[Arcanir]

Incidentally, how hard is it to balance a large roster of characters, really? I mean, sure, for each one addition to the roster, you needs to see how they'd compare to the rest of the extent roster (which at this point would mean conducting over 80 different types of match-ups, assuming they kept Ultimate's roster going forward). However, for Ultimate, they had actual competitive Smash players do the testing, if I recall correctly. Maybe it could be pulled off a lot easier if they have more people to put in the work, which could be another thing that could come down to having a higher budget.

Very difficult. Not only do you have to balance a newcomer against those 80+ characters, but you also likely have to balance them across the different modes like Single Player, 1v1, 2v2, free-for-all, and the like, and that definitely adds up. A higher budget wouldn't really fix that problem as balancing requires time and investment as well to consider each interaction and making sure nothing is broken in any scenario, and that's not something so easily fixed by just throwing money at it.

For what it's worth, even as someone who firmly believes they're not doing Everyone Is Here again (based on things Sakurai himself has said and all that), I also can't see the next game having fewer veterans than base game Smash 4's starting roster count (so no fewer than 51 veterans).

That's what I'm thinking as well. They may not be able to get every character back, but Sakurai knows and has stated multiple times that each character has their fans, and he will work hard to keep as many as he can. Smash 4's number is a baseline I think he'd work toward as it retains many of the characters people love while still giving the team more flexibility to continue to develop more newcomers and content.

 

[dream1ng]

I think the way to mitigate the sting of cuts is to make the platform so different that comparisons to previous games can't faithfully be 1:1.

If you start with a small base with a sizeable proportion of newcomers, and update fairly regularly with fighters (and stages) both new and old, you will keep hope alive that any given veteran will return, and people, after griping about the service model, will understand the utility (though not idealism) of the longitudinal model in starting back from a much more foundational level.

Plus that also allows veterans to both receive more spotlight when they are re-added, with their own trailer, plus can offset the increased development time of newcomers to intersperse them with returning fighters.

Of course base itself couldn't be barebones lest we get another SFV snafu, and would require and entail a bevy of modes and options, as well as new distinguishing features both in and outside of the combat itself. But I don't think any project Sakurai helms would release in a state considered "barebones".

And I know that may not be the most popular way to proceed, but I think it would actually ease people into the new direction of Smash and the inevitability of a number of characters not returning than just dumping something similar to Ultimate but with like a third of the roster gone and not to return.

 

[PeridotGX]

I would be willing to accept massive roster cuts - so long as we get something to compensate for it. Be it interesting new mechanics, a fully-fledged subspace-esque mode, or simply just a lot of new characters. I've made a roster for a hypothetical reboot - 25 veterans, 25 newcomers. There are some hard cuts, but I think the characters added make up for it.

 

[Geno Boost]

I wouldn't be happy with an Ultimate Deluxe. I want to see a completely new Smash with a smaller roster but a great deal of gameplay tweaks and redesigned movesets to the point where some of the vets feel like newcomers. That's what I want.

This could be done without cutting the roster the veterans that needs to have better upgraded moveset are only few such as decloning the echoes and improving and few others but besides that most smash characters arleady have unique and good playstyle so cutting them wouldn’t be a good idea when they already have the assets to use them again.

Like look at for example they fit their playstyle perfectly would there be any reason to remake them or cut them?

 

[MasterCheef]

Y'all replies here seem to be missing the point. my point was i want quality over quantity. having a large roster of majority characters who really don't actually work well given the overall design of the game is thoroughly un-fun. the move-sets are designed around how iconic they are. Rather the better option is to primarily design around how well they would actually work in game while keeping their history.

I fail to see how cutting that many characters is anything close to a good idea, let alone a sane one.

What is to be gained exactly ?

Smash Ultimate is also the most balanced Smash game to date, so even that point it totally moot.

A smaller roster is nowhere an indication of a better game, or a better balanced game. Ultimate has better balance than Melee, maybe even Smash 64. And it has many times more characters.

This is what I really don't get about these reboot fanatics. I couldn't even picture a roster that small anymore. Any such drastic cuts wouldn't be received well for a game series so famous about the fact many peoples favorite character is in.

Anything below 70 at this point is not realistic to me honestly.

1 Most of the playable characters don't actually function well with aerial combat which is where the most important plays typically take place.
2 Balance is NOT what I typed. I typed about being EFFECTIVE
3 I am looking for a roster of fun and effective characters. this current roster is waaay too bloated for that.
4 The smash Community has been clamoring for a remake of Melee for over a decade. You do not think it would sell well?

This could be done without cutting the roster the veterans that needs to have better upgraded moveset are only few such as decloning the echoes and improving and few others but besides that most smash characters already have unique and good playstyle so cutting them wouldn’t be a good idea when they already have the assets to use them again.

Like look at for example they fit their playstyle perfectly would there be any reason to remake them or cut them?

I am quite perplexed by your definiton of ... good playstyle?
Good playstyle to me means effective aerial combat and minimum reasonable recovery.
For the record I don't consider 1V1s as the best experience for Smash. it is marketed as a party game. meaning having more than 2 people play at the same time. 1V1s are incredibly boring to me because the play-style is already known at the very beginning thus making it exceedingly predictable.

 

[ForsakenM]

I wouldn't be happy with an Ultimate Deluxe. I want to see a completely new Smash with a smaller roster but a great deal of gameplay tweaks and redesigned movesets to the point where some of the vets feel like newcomers. That's what I want.

You are very much the minority on this one chief.

Most people want characters, because the mechanics will come anyway.

Think about this: go back to Street Fighter 2, and then count every Street Fighter game up to 5. If you look at really brief footage of each game, you'll notice changes in core mechanics for each. Some change very little and just add more character and make small balance adjustments, and some are so massive it doesn't feel like you are playing Street Fighter anymore outside of the roster.

If companies who make games where the diversity is mainly in the selectable roster of characters DIDN'T make big changes between titles, people would stop buying their games. Hell, new characters ARE a new mechanic: they often bring something completely new to the game and even if you don't play them, now you have a new match-up to learn. However, eventually people will want to play the same character but in a different way, or with more options, or just somehow shaking things up. This is usually what a new game in the franchise offers.

Your issue for getting real support or understanding here is you fail to realize that you can get what YOU want without cutting a single character in the roster. You act as if trading a big roster for a small one is worth it because the smaller roster will be more diverse, when in reality you can have both a large and diverse roster. Granted, the larger the roster gets, the more likely you are to recycle some ideas...but I think Ultimate is a shining star on both having a large roster, lots of playstyle diversity, and good balance (much unlike MvC2, which only had the large roster but only a handful are worth playing).

Even if your are requesting new mechanics for all characters, you can get that without cutting the roster. Remember Sakurai saying that he was considering adding Aerial Smash Attacks? Is Ultimate's roster to blame for why that didn't manifest, or is it Sakurai and his team being forced into a 2018 timeframe that forced them to not make major gameplay changes?

Now consider this: Massive changes to the core gameplay honestly cannot happen at this stage, only additions that are mostly minor. Why is that? Because when people buy Smash, they buy it for what they know they are getting into, and the gameplay of just being able to jump in and screw around with friends and be effective is part of it. Too many changes, or too massive a change, and you lose casual audience members. Currently, we are in the Platform Fighter Era, and if you want a game that plays different from Smash...you play a different game from Smash.

Hyper offensive gameplay with little defensive options, unique mechanics, and mobility? Rivals of Aether shakes your hand. Wanna play a game that feels like Melee but if all the mechanics were intended? I believe Rushdown Revolt will work for you, but there is more than one that could fit that. Want something goofy and original but still plays solid in a competitive environment? Slap City or Fight of Animals: Arena. You like the speed and combos of Melee but don't want to play the same game but with new faces? Nick All-Star Brawl, for as much **** as people give it, really does have you covered. think Nintendo is incompetent with their IP representation? Super Smash Flash 1 & 2 as well as Super Smash Crusade, and likely more I don't know about. Want items to be a part of core gameplay? Brawlhalla. You like the idea being focused on team mechanics and gameplay? MultiVersus.

Hell dude, if you just want the crazy cooky randomness of Mugen, hitting up the workshop for Rivals will giving you so many hours of gameplay it's unreal. We also have more platform fighters coming out consistently, and Rivals 2 and Fraymakers really seem like they are going to explode. We are at the point where you can pick a platform fighter just for the stylist choices and have TONS of options. We had Cartoon Network Punch-Time Explosion for CN, but now we can easily have MultiVersus cover both CN and WB (and from the looks of it, general movie and streaming IPs), you've got NASB for Nick, Rivals and Fraymakers for indies, and you can come back to Smash for Videos Games: The Video Game.

Am I saying you shouldn't want new mechanics in Smash? Absolutely not, I want them as well, and so do many others. Am I saying go play another platform fighter instead? No, but I AM saying that if Smash isn't giving you what you want, you may want to look around as we are in that place in time with more and more options.

What I am TRULY saying is that you can want both a large roster AND fresh gameplay mechanics and not be seen as greedy, and that is something you should expect from a AAA developer and something Smash can easily provide at this time.

 

[Trevenant]

But still, there's massive problems with just expanding the roster forever and ever. Eventually it will reach a point where balancing becomes completely impossible due to the massive amount of roster bloat. Eventually they will have to do a massive downsize of the roster size to better create a more balanced and fun environment.

This could be said, but like, just to throw numbers out there, 200 to something like 90 is one thing, but 90 to 20 or possibly even less is at the very least somewhat ridiculous. Not saying it has to be 90 or even one of those 2, but I'm saying it falling somewhere in between like smash 4 is kinda inevitable. They just cut down but not go full on binary 0 and just keep like 10. BTW not saying 200 is even realistic, just throwing potential numbers out as said.

How the hell would that work? Yes while it could hypothetically have a lot of redesigned vets and newcomers, but A) most vets flat out can't or have no need to be redesigned and B) unfortunately there are only so many new characters you can introduce before it starts to feel contrived just to prove a point, as the only viable method to include more would be then to include more vets, which proves my point. Like at most, characters who feel like they could be redesigned are about half of the 64 cast as the rest getting overhauls would be kinda arbitrary as they work fine now or have no other potential, and roughly the same for the melee cast, with the only egregious case beyond those games being Sonic. The number goes even lower if you wanna exclude ones who are deliberately derivative like the Links, and even further if you consider the likes of Sonic and Kirby etc were likely deliberately designed with their kits in mind, meaning we'd probably need a new director to be willing to polish those 2 kits up significantly.

Just shows how the reboot mentality is a way too binary viewpoint on several levels, such as how the roster must be cut to update vets even though most can agree that most vets are fine with a rare few exceptions from 64 and Melee, and how introducing new characters in this hypothetical reboot environment would either have to deliberately avoid vets included post, or change them just to fit this arbitrary new theme, and if they don't then that displays the point of why a new smash game without arbitrary descriptors would be perfectly fine

 

[SPEN18]

We're just having a conversation. I have no ill will towards SPEN18 for having a different perspective on this and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss it in depth

Yup, no ill will from my end, either! Some firm language gets used to make a point but it's important to be clear that nothing is personal, and that at the end of the day we're just talking about a game.

I really like how close we got to everywhere is here being a thing and would love for that to happen someday.

I guess that's another area where we differ greatly. I personally found Ultimate's stage selection to be rather lacking with at least a fair bit of redundancy and not so many new stages (not counting the DLC ones, and even if you count those they only really appeal to me if I am interested in the particular franchise they're from).
I don't know how many ported stages you'd have to cut to get even one new one, but that's not really the point; the stage roster clearly dealt with some bloat IMO and there are several items I would've trimmed, even including certain characters, stages, and WoL stuff, if that's what it would've taken to improve the overall selection both in terms of gameplay and in terms of well-representing the various franchises.

That's another wacky feature I'd absolutely adore. A legacy physics emulator. Play the game with any set of physics you want ranging from Melee, Brawl, Smash 4, Ultimate and of course Smash 6 whatever form it takes.

While I see the appeal to it, my personal feeling is that "legacy physics" would be more work than it's worth. Plus I feel that more homogeneous gameplay is more conducive to people connecting via couch play; if everyone's using vastly different mechanics then it's more awkward to sit down and play together with friends. I don't really have any strong connections or feelings to competitive Melee and the like, though, so I'm probably coming from a much different place than most of the people who would request this feature. Personally I feel that they have, largely, done a good job of updating the mechanics with each new iteration (even Melee to Brawl), to the point that no Smash game ever made me want to ditch it in favor of the previous engine.

That's a question involving the Switch successor just as much if not more than Ultimate's successor itself so it's difficult to say one way or the other but I imagine that Ultimate DX is capable of any updates necessary to meet your standards.

I mean, yeah, there is a lot of pure speculation going on when we talk about new hardware. But the reality is that hardware transitions have almost always necessitated the ground-up model for new Smash games, with Ultimate being the exception and not the rule.

--

Also I didn't intend to open a can of worms with mentioning National Dex. But, while it's definitely not the same situation, there are some parallels to be drawn and perhaps lessons to be learned in terms of changing hardware standards necessitating cuts to a playable roster.
However, a sort of rotating cast is a lot more sensible for PKMN than for Smash, I think. While I am fine with certain characters getting cut due to low priority the next time, I wouldn't argue for adding a new character from the same franchise or archetype for the explicit purpose of being a replacement. Said new character would have to get in on their own merit, and not get added priority just because another lost it.

--

Keeping some or even most of Ultimate say even like 80% as your day 0 base doesn't magically generate any content and is objectively worse than starting with 100% Ultimate as your day 0 base. Sure there's work that needs to be done on that 20% of content that'll take time and resources but when compared to the investment in time and resources for starting a piece of content from scratch the return on investment of said time/resources going to established content offers yields that are tremendously superior and thus very much worth the investment/priority when starting Smash 6 I believe.

I would argue that there is a diminishing return on bringing back old content. While it might be less work to bring back something old, at a point you're not really piling on any more interesting selling points to the game and you're not exciting people the way you would by adding even comparatively less new content. Especially when the overall amount of content is going to be more than satisfactory regardless.

--

very confusing terminology

Yeah I'm going to reiterate that I can't recall ever arguing for a "reboot" or characterizing any of my asks that way.
Cutting significant content is not "rebooting" IMO.

As an example, imagine Brawl exactly as it was, but just minus another handful of Melee characters and stages. For the sake of being explicit, imagine Brawl but take out, say, the following:

Sheik (with Zelda's moveset being accordingly reworked),
Ice Climbers,
Falco,
Jigglypuff;

Big Blue,
Melee PKMN Stadium,
Melee Yoshi's Island,
Temple,
Jungle Japes

(to be clear, everything that was actually cut from Melee also stays cut in this example).

Counting transformation characters separately like Ult does, we're cutting 9 out of 27 characters in Melee, so a whole third (I know, a lot of them are clones, but Ult also has plenty of clones that could be jettisoned and I made three additional unique cuts).
I still think such a game would easily feel like a proper sequel (so not a reboot) that, on the whole, progresses naturally from Melee, sells well, and draws a ton of new players in, especially casuals.
And this is even assuming we don't get anything else new from the resources saved by these cuts. Maybe we could've gotten a reworked Ganon or a Little Mac out of this, though I don't know exactly what it would translate to.

I could play a similar game for Brawl/4 or 4/Ult, but the numbers are smaller for Melee/Brawl and so it was easier.

--

And even if some content doesn't return in the base game, I see no need to completely shut the door on them potentially returning as DLC

And this already long post will now also reiterate that I find it highly unlikely that DLC would be used to recoup EiH. Selling vets as DLC is only going to be effective at a certain volume and in any case it's not going to be a replacement for, nor be as profitable as, selling actual new characters and stages. Come to think of it, they might even be better off selling some popular echoes or even newcomer semiclones over pumping out more vets, depending on the specific characters involved.

Returning vets as DLC would actually probably only happen for the vets that had enough work done on them prior to release, meaning they would have to factor into the initial project plan in some way and also make it to later stages of development.