Official Next Smash - Speculation & Discussion Thread

[Hadokeyblade]

actually it’s a very poorly defined term and some argue it’s the same as a remake

A remake is taking the general plot beats of an older work and trying to bring it up to the modern day.

A reboot is only having the names and setting of an older work but everything else is different.

Going back to an earlier conversation from this thread for a second, that really bothered me when people called the PS4 Sakura wars game a reboot just because one of the girls in the game shared the name Sakura with an older character, the plot of the game is very clearly a sequel since it picks up 12 years after the fifth game (5 takes place in 1928 while 6 takes place in 1940)

Sorry that has nothing to do with smash but i really wanted to get it off my chest somewhere.

 

[Sucumbio]

Is it like whiskey and bourbon? All reboots are remakes but not all remakes are reboots? Meh I use them interchangeably I suppose... But didn't Sakurai just point out that sequels aren't even possible unless you have a formula base that doesn't change? So...

 

[DarthEnderX]

Yeah losing Diddy or MK in a ~50-character roster is simply unviable.

If I was being forced at gunpoint to cut Smash's roster, no series would get more than one character. 50 character roster? That's 50 different series.

 

[Hadokeyblade]

If I was being forced at gunpoint to cut Smash's roster, no series would get more than one character. 50 character roster? That's 50 different series.

Here's the tight 30 roster I made before Ultimate. Just replace Charizard with, like, Hero.

View attachment 380862

Thats how i always tried coming up with rosters years ago. Each slot would be a different series unless its like, Mario or Pokemon, the really popular series can get more than one.

 

[Quillion]

Whatever the case with characters, I hope they add something to the core gameplay since I'm not all too concerned with characters anymore personally.

I'd love to see things like having a consolidated universal "super meter" mechanic or reworking all the neutral airs into aerial jabs. The gameplay definitely needs to be freshened up.

 

[Wonder Smash]

Am I the only one that doesn't mind if characters like Duck Hunt and the Ice Climbers don't get changed? I don't mean as in balanced but as in, having any of their moves changed or "updated".

 

[SPEN18]

If I was being forced at gunpoint to cut Smash's roster, no series would get more than one character. 50 character roster? That's 50 different series.

Here's the tight 30 roster I made before Ultimate. Just replace Charizard with, like, Hero.

View attachment 380862

I can understand wanting to avoid cutting an entire series from the roster, but I think 50 characters, 50 series is taking that mindset way too far to the extreme. Depth vs. breadth, you know.

Though I might guess this philosophy is also partially an alternate way of saying "I want a lot of third party characters"?

 

[Noipoi]

Am I the only one that doesn't mind if characters like Duck Hunt and the Ice Climbers don't get changed? I don't mean as in balanced but as in, having any of their moves changed or "updated".

I think the Ice Climbers need a new Up Special because the one they have now sucks assicles

 

[Swamp Sensei]

I think the Ice Climbers need a new Up Special because the one they have now sucks assicles

The idea isn't bad, and worked well in the past.

It's just Ultimate's version is awful and broken. It doesn't work.

 

[Quillion]

Am I the only one that doesn't mind if characters like Duck Hunt and the Ice Climbers don't get changed? I don't mean as in balanced but as in, having any of their moves changed or "updated".

Frankly, the only characters who can actually support significant moveset changes are Ganondorf and Zelda since their portrayals have drifted away from canon.

And I'll still complain if they make Ganondorf just another sword-wielding sorcerer in Smash. They should make him unique AND a puncher in both Zelda canon and Smash.

 

[DarthEnderX]

I can understand wanting to avoid cutting an entire series from the roster, but I think 50 characters, 50 series is taking that mindset way too far to the extreme. Depth vs. breadth, you know.

I don't agree. When it comes to series representation, I prefer breadth to depth.


For example, here's my 40 character roster:

 

[Kirbeh]

I don't think I was talking about that, as in talking about what a reboot is and that "retooling and additions to mechanics", that kind of stuff. Nor did I necessarily say that characters would be barred from ever returning in a reboot. The question I am curious to know, is who was?

I mean, obviously, a reboot can be different from retooling and all. Still, what is your stance on rebooting Smash Bros. overall?

My post wasn't at all directed towards you; I would have quoted you if that were the case. Like this one.

No one here has specifically said "Cut characters are barred from returning", I'm more referring (in hyperbolic manner) to the way people act when it comes to cuts. Base game or bust seems to be the mentality a lot seem to carry. Again, this isn't directed at any particular user, just something I've seen every so often during my years of lurking here.

Obviously, no one wants the characters they like to be cut and missing base would certainly suck, but I think Smash fans need to learn to be more open to veterans as DLC. We already got just that in Smash 4, and with cuts being likely for the next game, it's kind of the only way for the series to retain as many of these characters as possible.

As for my stance on "rebooting", I honestly don't care. If the next game is Ultimate Deluxe, I'm cool with that. If it cuts back a little but retains most of the same roster and just tweaks the gameplay a little, I'm cool with that. If they drastically retool the roster and scale back the overall scope (numbers wise) while adding brand new mechanics, I'm cool with that. I just want a fun platform fighter with some mechanical depth.

I'm not worried about mainstays and major secondary characters getting cut. The Mario's and Diddy's of the roster are all safe imo.

I'm also already comfortable with the characters I enjoy being cut because it's already happened and many of the characters I like are either low priority or disliked by the community at large. I'm in the minority, so I don't expect to be catered to. Plus, I enjoy a lot of characters so I have others to fall back on or will simply find someone else among whatever newcomers get added. Moreover, this is just how series progression works in the fighting game genre. Cuts/returns have been a normal thing in fighting games for ages, Smash has instead gone above and beyond to spoil us.

Not to say I don't like how good we've had it. If we could keep Everyone is Here going and add on even more, I'd take that too. Just not holding my breath.

My personal pet peeve is that people dont seem to know what the word "reboot" means in context of media.

It means completely starting from scratch with no connection to what came before beyond names.

This is kind of an overarching problem with how some terms are defined in games especially. No one can seem to agree on how to define or use reboot, remake, remaster or reimagining.

I've always treated it as:

Remaster; same code, same game. Just touched up visuals and maybe some QoL tweaks here and there. Metroid Prime Remastered, Ocarina of Time 3D/Majora's Mask 3D, >insert PS3 era remastered trilogy<etc.

Remake: Redone code and everything, but one-to-one or otherwise extremely faithful recreation with some potential changes and new content. An example would be Resident Evil (2002)

Reboot: Continuity reset.

Reimagining is a much looser term because reboots and remakes can both be considered reimagining's; one is simply more faithful to the source material than the other. In some cases, especially in recent years, some games can be both at once.

The Resident Evil 2-4 remakes are just that, remakes, but they also significantly alter the continuity/character portrayals, etc., diverging from the originals. Still remakes, but not exactly faithful ones.

Frankly, the only characters who can actually support significant moveset changes are Ganondorf and Zelda since their portrayals have drifted away from canon.

And I'll still complain if they make Ganondorf just another sword-wielding sorcerer in Smash. They should make him unique AND a puncher in both Zelda canon and Smash.

I'm still in favor of having Ganondorf punches, kicks, sword swings and magic all in one. He does all of these things in actual Zelda already.

 

[Arcadenik]

I just want Ganondorf to be able to float and use magic like in his boss fight in Ocarina of Time.

 

[RodNutTakin]

No one here has specifically said "Cut characters are barred from returning", I'm more referring (in hyperbolic manner) to the way people act when it comes to cuts. Base game or bust seems to be the mentality a lot seem to carry. Again, this isn't directed at any particular user, just something I've seen every so often during my years of lurking here.

Obviously, no one wants the characters they like to be cut and missing base would certainly suck, but I think Smash fans need to learn to be more open to veterans as DLC. We already got just that in Smash 4, and with cuts being likely for the next game, it's kind of the only way for the series to retain as many of these characters as possible.

My concern is that in a post-Challenger Pack world, it's not immediately apparent on the best way to tackle selling veterans.
Each Challenger Pack for Ultimate was 6 dollars in price, all coming with a stage, music selection and Spirit Board. I feel this was reasonable enough, even if I personally think it should've been 5 dollars each since that feels like a better number to me.
Regardless, charging that same asking price for a returning character like Incineroar or Wolf would feel like highway robbery--most of the first-party vets I could see in this position wouldn't be able to justify costing the same amount as a Challenger Pack, and I doubt they would cut an entire first-party series with the intent of reselling it as a Challenger Pack-sized bundle, either.

This is when I decided to go back and look at the prices each character had for SSB4, which was a mix of veterans and new characters. I'll be using the prices for the Wii U version for this.
-The returning fighters (Mewtwo, Lucas and Roy) cost $3.99 each.
-Corrin, the sole first-party newcomer, costs $4.99.
-The third-party newcomers (Ryu, Cloud and Bayonetta) cost $5.99 each.
Being that 4 was the first game to try DLC, at the time this system wasn't anything to bat an eyelash at. But in a post-Ultimate world, the idea that someone like Lucas was being sold for only $2 less than an Ultimate Challenger Pack, while neither having a stage or non-Single Player trophies...does look a bit awkward, with the only real justification being that the pool of characters people wanted to see return was pretty shallow at the time--Wolf was pretty much the one popular, feasible returning character that missed 4 entirely.

While I am still adamant in my belief that the culling from Ultimate to 6 will end up beng around the 8-12 character mark, that number still might be bigger for the initial launch, and that means that while the pool of characters that many will want to have come back will be much wider, it's going to be a tightrope act with bringing them back without disrupting the standard that Ultimate's Fighter Passes brought on. I doubt people would be willing to have to pay for both a Fighter's Pass and a Veteran's Pass, and it'd only be worse if Nintendo treated bringing back Lucas again as a Challenger's Pack slot, for example. And I haven't even mentioned the additional factor of returning third-party characters.
Ultimately, however, I don't think there is a true way to tackle this situation without some complaining, but that doesn't mean I can't still try my best with it.

Here's how I would break the next game's DLC down.
-First-party veterans would cost $2.50 each. Pocket change money for characters that would likely be easy enough to add back in every so often, especially since none of the characters would need to be basically redone from scratch unlike with 4's case for the Melee characters.
-Third-party veterans would cost $4.99 each. The couple of characters I have in mind for this would be Challenger Pack-sized in content, but with a dollar shaved off since they're returning characters/series instead of brand new ones.
-Instead of any pass system, the DLC veterans would get bundled in waves down the line as a small incentive for those holding out.
-DLC newcomers would continue to follow Ultimate's Fighter Pass system to a T, including a $5.99 pricetag for each individual pack.

Overall, the fact that I'm writing all of this down is pretty much me stating my belief that if SSB6 is going to have to make some sacrifices in places with the base game, it better have a much more in-depth and content-rich post-launch development cycle to make up for it. 4 did decent with post-launch content considering the scope that game had, and Ultimate got away with nothing more than the two Passes and a few free updates because of its packed base game, but IMO the next games need to seriously step up with their post-launch cycles if they want to keep interest high.

 

[fogbadge]

A remake is taking the general plot beats of an older work and trying to bring it up to the modern day.

A reboot is only having the names and setting of an older work but everything else is different.

that's what some people say but there isn't actually proper definition. except for in computing. there are plenty of reboots out there that use more than just names and places

 

[DarthEnderX]

I'm not sure you even can reboot Smash, because part of being a reboot is that you restart the continuity from scratch. And Smash doesn't really have a continuity to begin with.

It's like how you can't really reboot mainline Final Fantasy, because every mainline Final Fantasy is basically a reboot already.

 

[UserKev]

I'm not sure you even can reboot Smash, because part of being a reboot is that you restart the continuity from scratch. And Smash doesn't really have a continuity to begin with.

It's like how you can't really reboot mainline Final Fantasy, because every mainline Final Fantasy is basically a reboot already.

In Smash's case, a reboot is represented by a "diminished" roster. It doesn't have to do with Smash's continuity. It's basically ignoring any "width" the previous installment tried to build. That's my definition of it.

 

[CapitaineCrash]

Am I the only one that doesn't mind if characters like Duck Hunt and the Ice Climbers don't get changed? I don't mean as in balanced but as in, having any of their moves changed or "updated".

I never saw anyone asking for new moveset for those characters in the first place. The point of moveset changes is when characters get update and the fanbase feels that the old moveset doesn't represent well more recent appearances of the characters. This include characters like Mario (who have new power-up in almost every mainline game), Ganondorf (who never had a really good moveset to begin with), Samus, Luigi (with Luigi's mansion), Sonic etc. What would they even changed in a new Ice climbers moveset? They already had to stretch the 1 attack they have in their origin game (hitting with a hammer) to a whole moveset.

 

[Gorgonzales]

I never saw anyone asking for new moveset for those characters in the first place. The point of moveset changes is when characters get update and the fanbase feels that the old moveset doesn't represent well more recent appearances of the characters. This include characters like Mario (who have new power-up in almost every mainline game), Ganondorf (who never had a really good moveset to begin with), Samus, Luigi (with Luigi's mansion), Sonic etc. What would they even changed in a new Ice climbers moveset? They already had to stretch the 1 attack they have in their origin game (hitting with a hammer) to a whole moveset.

This. All Icies really could ever ask for is a way to easily and manually desync (maybe as a shield special), I feel this would easily make them more interesting, unique, and approachable. Otherwise they're good as is, barring Nana AI improvements (and an effect for when Nana disappears after Popo is KO'd. Seriously, Brawl had an effect for that. The way she just unceremoniously vanishes out of existence in Ultimate is jarring).

 

[CapitaineCrash]

This. All Icies really could ever ask for is a way to easily and manually desync (maybe as a shield special), I feel this would easily make them more interesting, unique, and approachable. Otherwise they're good as is, barring Nana AI improvements (and an effect for when Nana disappears after Popo is KO'd. Seriously, Brawl had an effect for that. The way she just unceremoniously vanishes out of existence in Ultimate is jarring).

Yeah those are fair changes, but AI improvements I count that as a balance changes, not an actual moveset changes. A desync button could be fun but it would also need huge balance change because the fact that desync is that hard to do to begin with is pretty much the only reason why Icies isn't S++ tier in Ultimate. Either way, I would argue that a manual desync button is also more a balance changes than an actual moveset changes, similar to how in Overwatch they made the Mercy Guardian angel super jump an actual mechanics instead of something hard to pull off consistently (because I think it was a glitch and not something actually meant to happen).

 

[Diddy Kong]

Returning stages get in the way of making new stages, which I'd much rather have. I like a lot of old stages but it's time to just let them go, I want new visuals and experiences from new games

And yeah 25 was a bit much, but my point stands if there's enough content elsewhere to substantiate it. Smash games are more than their roster.





Honestly this mentality is exactly why if they do a reboot they should be merciless with that axe, cut everything down and revamp almost all movesets to drive home the point that this is not a traditional Smash Bros, but rather a new step in an entirely new era. People are so stuck in the mentality that specific sets of characters must be complete before anyone else gets in (e.g. Kirby/Dedede/MK before Bandana Dee, or DK & Diddy before K. Rool) , which is really limiting for bringing in new characters and experiences (not to mention flat-out wrong).

Might as well cut Luigi and Peach cause Nabbit and Elephant Mario are new experiences.

Diddy and Meta Knight are overall much more important and popular characters than K.Rool and Bandana Dee. You'd know if you'd been around.

Back in the Brawl speculation era it was borderline blasphemous to suggest another DK character before Diddy. The biggest debate was if Diddy would be paired with Dixie or not.

So want a new experience with Diddy? Try suggest the Dixie pair up maybe.

 

[RileyXY1]

Might as well cut Luigi and Peach cause Nabbit and Elephant Mario are new experiences.

Diddy and Meta Knight are overall much more important and popular characters than K.Rool and Bandana Dee. You'd know if you'd been around.

Back in the Brawl speculation era it was borderline blasphemous to suggest another DK character before Diddy. The biggest debate was if Diddy would be paired with Dixie or not.

So want a new experience with Diddy? Try suggest the Dixie pair up maybe.

According to unused data in Brawl, it was possible that they actually intended for Diddy and Dixie to be a tag fighter, but that idea was scrapped and Diddy was instead added on his own.

 

[DarthEnderX]

In Smash's case, a reboot is represented by a "diminished" roster. It doesn't have to do with Smash's continuity. It's basically ignoring any "width" the previous installment tried to build. That's my definition of it.

Okay. I don't agree with that definition, but I at least understand it.

That's a weird thing to call a reboot, because that's something fighting games do all the time, and nobody would call them reboots. I don't have a term handy for what to call that though.

Diddy and Meta Knight are overall much more important and popular characters than K.Rool and Bandana Dee. You'd know if you'd been around.

Back in the Brawl speculation era it was borderline blasphemous to suggest another DK character before Diddy. The biggest debate was if Diddy would be paired with Dixie or not.

I dunno about the rest of you guys, but I suspect that this user named Diddy Kong with a Diddy avatar might being slightly biased.

 

[fogbadge]

According to unused data in Brawl, it was possible that they actually intended for Diddy and Dixie to be a tag fighter, but that idea was scrapped and Diddy was instead added on his own.

no it was according to sakurai that they were a tag team. the data just said she was there

 

[Hadokeyblade]

I really wish we lived in the timeline where Diddy and Dixie were the tag fighter they were conceptualized as.

We'd have avoided so many internet arguments there.

 

[fogbadge]

man i hope we get the remake version of beware the forest mushrooms (and here's some weapons) regardless of what newcomers we get. this is one of yoko's best remixes

 

[Gengar84]

I really wish we lived in the timeline where Diddy and Dixie were the tag fighter they were conceptualized as.

We'd have avoided so many internet arguments there.

I agree. I like the team up idea a lot and was one thing that really made the DKC games stand out mechanically compared to something like Super Mario. They can still implement this idea with a Dixie/Kiddy pair up but I’d have ideally wanted Diddy/Dixie. I’m hoping if we do get Dixie, she brings some of the unique gameplay from the DKC trilogy, whether that’s in the form of a team up or using the animal buddies in some way. The animal buddies could also work as a unique item that functioned like rideable assist trophies anyone could use.

 

[UserKev]

I really don't like pairings. It worked for Ice Climbers because it's so unique to them. A Diddy And Dixie pair would have been just a big disservice. Diddy and Dixie offer far more individuality on their own.

 

[Dinoman96]

I really don't like pairings. It worked for Ice Climbers because it's so unique to them. A Diddy And Dixie pair would have been just a big disservice. Diddy and Dixie offer far more individuality on their own.

By the sound of things, it was gonna be more like Zelda/Sheik or Pokemon Trainer with a tag team gimmick, like in DKC2.

The thing is, in the long run, it actually would have been better because Dixie very likely would of been split off into her own character anyways, like what happened with Samus/ZSS and Zelda/Shiek.

That is, assuming Dixie wouldn't just been cut entirely in Smash 4 lol, like what happened with Ivysaur and Squirtle

 

[Gengar84]

I really don't like pairings. It worked for Ice Climbers because it's so unique to them. A Diddy And Dixie pair would have been just a big disservice. Diddy and Dixie offer far more individuality on their own.

I guess it’s a matter of personal preference but I’ve always liked the idea. I don’t think it really works for any two characters but when the two have unique team abilities in their home series or if they have strong story reasons for a pairing, I think it can really work. DKC had pretty unique tag mechanics where one Kong could pick up and throw the other to either attack enemies, break obstacles, or reach new areas. I personally think these are good justifications to a team up.

I think a DKC pairing would be kind of a hybrid between Zelda/Sheik and Ice Climbers but leaning more towards the former. Like Ice Climbers, both would be visible at the same time but like Zelda/Sheik, only one is active at a time. For the most part, they function separately with the exception of an attack that could throw the inactive Kong.

 

[Perkilator]

Regarding the scrapped idea of a Diddy and Dixie tage team, I had a similar idea for Plusle & Minun being a tag team while Dixie Kong is an Echo of Diddy Kong (the latter two starred in their own games anyway, so I figured that was enough of a justification for Diddy and Dixie to be separate).

 

[DarthEnderX]

I really don't like pairings. It worked for Ice Climbers because it's so unique to them.

I really don't like pairings AND I don't think it worked for Ice Climbers. It just makes characters needlessly complicated and awkward.

And it didn't even really make any sense to do that with IC. It's not even as though it was trying to accurately represent their game, cause it doesn't even play like that!

Diddy and Dixie playing as a tag team would have at least been accurate to DKC2.

 

[Diddy Kong]

According to unused data in Brawl, it was possible that they actually intended for Diddy and Dixie to be a tag fighter, but that idea was scrapped and Diddy was instead added on his own.

My chosen username and join time predates Diddy's inclusion in Smash. Trust me, I know. But thanks for clearing it out for those who don't.

Anyway cutting Diddy is ridiculous. And that's the point I was making.

 

[Sucumbio]

I really don't like pairings AND I don't think it worked for Ice Climbers. It just makes characters needlessly complicated and awkward.

And it didn't even really make any sense to do that with IC. It's not even as though it was trying to accurately represent their game, cause it doesn't even play like that!

Diddy and Dixie playing as a tag team would have at least been accurate to DKC2.

Actually yeah it shoulda been Mario with a hammer imho but with doc there to it's like how many we need let's think outside the box but they forgot to close it up again before launch. I haven't even played ic past the first few minutes I think it was part of brawl? It's on NSO I tried it again it still sucks. The arcade game is better looking but I was usually terrible and games like that which kinda has better offerings like Contra.

 

[Kirbeh]

My chosen username and join time predates Diddy's inclusion in Smash. Trust me, I know. But thanks for clearing it out for those who don't.

Anyway cutting Diddy is ridiculous. And that's the point I was making.

I don't think anyone here was disagreeing with cutting Diddy being a bad take though?

The "debate" only happened in response to how you reacted to Delzethin's video.

 

[CannonStreak]

My post wasn't at all directed towards you; I would have quoted you if that were the case. Like this one.

No one here has specifically said "Cut characters are barred from returning", I'm more referring (in hyperbolic manner) to the way people act when it comes to cuts. Base game or bust seems to be the mentality a lot seem to carry. Again, this isn't directed at any particular user, just something I've seen every so often during my years of lurking here.

Obviously, no one wants the characters they like to be cut and missing base would certainly suck, but I think Smash fans need to learn to be more open to veterans as DLC. We already got just that in Smash 4, and with cuts being likely for the next game, it's kind of the only way for the series to retain as many of these characters as possible.

As for my stance on "rebooting", I honestly don't care. If the next game is Ultimate Deluxe, I'm cool with that. If it cuts back a little but retains most of the same roster and just tweaks the gameplay a little, I'm cool with that. If they drastically retool the roster and scale back the overall scope (numbers wise) while adding brand new mechanics, I'm cool with that. I just want a fun platform fighter with some mechanical depth.

I'm not worried about mainstays and major secondary characters getting cut. The Mario's and Diddy's of the roster are all safe imo.

I'm also already comfortable with the characters I enjoy being cut because it's already happened and many of the characters I like are either low priority or disliked by the community at large. I'm in the minority, so I don't expect to be catered to. Plus, I enjoy a lot of characters so I have others to fall back on or will simply find someone else among whatever newcomers get added. Moreover, this is just how series progression works in the fighting game genre. Cuts/returns have been a normal thing in fighting games for ages, Smash has instead gone above and beyond to spoil us.

Not to say I don't like how good we've had it. If we could keep Everyone is Here going and add on even more, I'd take that too. Just not holding my breath.

I know you were not referring to me in particular.. I just wanted to make my stance clear.

I don't mind cuts, nor do I think characters would be barred from returning ever again if they were cut, either. Though I specifically mean the likes of why a reboot would be a bad idea in my last post, I don't think cuts are that much of an issue. The only character I don't want cut, or one of them, anyway, is Wolf. I do have faith that he will return. I also don't want King K. Rool cut, too, but him being cut may be unlikely. I'd also like Mewtwo to not be cut as well.

But even in cases like when Wolf did not return at all in Smash 4, I wouldn't be bothered, as long as other characters I like are still playable. Even if they were cut, I would not mind as there is always a chance for them appearing as DLC.

 

[Kirbeh]

I know you were not referring to me in particular.. I just wanted to make my stance clear.

I don't mind cuts, nor do I think characters would be barred from returning ever again if they were cut, either. Though I specifically mean the likes of why a reboot would be a bad idea in my last post, I don't think cuts are that much of an issue. The only character I don't want cut, or one of them, anyway, is Wolf. I do have faith that he will return. I also don't want King K. Rool cut, too, but him being cut may be unlikely. I'd also like Mewtwo to not be cut as well.

But even in cases like when Wolf did not return at all in Smash 4, I wouldn't be bothered, as long as other characters I like are still playable. Even if they were cut, I would not mind as there is always a chance for them appearing as DLC.

If you want to get technical Smash already regularly reboots it's continuity if you can even call it that.

The main thing people actually mean when it comes to rebooting is moreso focused on the characters and actual gameplay.

In regards to that, I don't think Smash needs to "reboot", I just want some more mechanics to play with and retooling for a handful of veterans. Otherwise the usual rebalancing and gradual changes are perfectly fine imo.

As for roster size, I don't want a drastic down size, I just think a few cuts are something to be expected.

 

[CannonStreak]

If you want to get technical Smash already regularly reboots it's continuity if you can even call it that.

The main thing people actually mean when it comes to rebooting is moreso focused on the characters and actual gameplay.

In regards to that, I don't think Smash needs to "reboot", I just want some more mechanics to play with and retooling for a handful of veterans. Otherwise the usual rebalancing and gradual changes are perfectly fine imo.

As for roster size, I don't want a drastic down size, I just think a few cuts are something to be expected.

On the reboot thing, quite a nice thought you have.

As for the roster size, yeah, even I don't want a drastic size decrease in the roster itself.

In terms of both, I would not be for a reboot IF it meant a drastic size decrease in the roster. I am well aware that a reboot doesn't necessarily need to have such a thing, though.

 

[Quillion]

The point of moveset changes is when characters get update and the fanbase feels that the old moveset doesn't represent well more recent appearances of the characters.

And it's a stupid idea for the vast majority of the roster because the old movesets have more recurring and/or iconic abilities while the "recent appearances" mostly end up being gimmicks that'll be dropped by next game.

Why does Mario need a bunch of power-ups when being a pseudo-shoto is a perfect role for him in Smash? Why does Sonic need a different moveset when his speedy nature is captured very well (okay, maybe a new side-B, but still).
----
On the topic of reboots, I don't think any definition of "reboot" is necessary for Smash. It just needs some fresh gameplay additions.

 

[LiveStudioAudience]

It's a relative concept anyway. For some, the enjoyment of a fighter does come from the sense of feeling like they came right from their titles and are now in a fighting game.

Honestly, as market impractical as it would be as a concept; I'd love the next game to basically have a theme of faithful versions vs unique versions when it came to the roster; get me a weirdly experimental K Rool vs a Mario that feels straight out of Odyssey, while current Ganondorf is going against a Ganonodorf straight out of Hyrule Warriors.