Official Next Smash - Speculation & Discussion Thread

[Trevenant]

They don't magically gain the license to use them in every Smash game for the rest of time or an Ultimate port. Need I mention Nocturne HD requiring you to pay extra for Dante again? What about how GTA's mobile ports lost a good chunk of songs and the Definitive Edition never fixed that?

Pretty sure they were talking in this hypothetical... where they had already approached them for use in an incredibly minor role in comparison to what they had previously aka playable.

I don't dislike the core gameplay. However, I do lament Ultimate's lack of variety, which seems especially glaring when you consider that every prior Smash (including Smash for WiiU and even the original N64 game) did a much better job of letting you play the game differently. Though, I've especially fell in love with platforming in Smash, as it seems like such a great fit for a series that began as a platforming-fighter hybrid in the first place, and it's extremely disheartening to see it increasingly de-emphasized post-Brawl.

Yeah, stuff like board the platforms etc did especially good jobs at fleshing out minigames for other options you have in smash without it being specifically regarding just free for alls... They've absolutely nailed the actual fighting and characters, but outside of HRC and stage builder if you wanna count that, there's not much... Kinda WoL too I guess... even if spirits are still kinda the same CPU fights...

 

[Diddy Kong]

I just wanted to ask, do people here like Smash's gameplay, or do they just prefer the crossover aspect? Would they prefer it if it was a different genre entirely? Small tweaks to current formula, like the concept but would completely change the genre, are only in love with the concept but can't be bothered to think of any better genre, think it's absurd that people suggest anything different than what we have now, etc? Even stuff like roster theming? Like first parties or third parties.. Not trying to start a flame war but I'm legitimately curious on people's views on smash's current concept... Just in general, what are your views on this?

I'm a fan of the gameplay, and I doubt Smash is ever gonna stray from it, seeing as Smash Bros literally invented the platformer fighting genre. Might even say, platformer fighting crossover genre, cause that's what many games that follow Smash's gameplay do. Jump Super Stars and Nickelodeon All Star Brawl are the most famous examples of this.

However, I don't play all these other games. As I'm not as much a fan of their rosters of characters as much as am I fan of all the Nintendo and partners games and franchises that came into Smash. So, I guess the answer is the crossover aspect.

I'd buy a Smash JRPG or any sort of RPG, or an adventure game, a 3D platformer, a beat em up or a classic fighting game as long as the gameplay is satisfying, doesn't stray too much from Smash and keeps certain core elements, and of course does it best to bring back the cast we all know and love.

Ideally though, I'd mix Smash with a few of the elements of the genres above, I think it could mix well. A more action based Paper Mario sort of RPG is a direction I could see working, even if it's only for say, a Adventure Mode for the main game. Smash tried to add certain RPG elements over the course of the series anyway you know.

With that being said, I could again, envision a Smash Ultimate Deluxe game, coupled with a brand new Smash on the same console that focusses more on single player than multiplayer. Or! We get Smash Ultimate Deluxe with a DLC Adventure Mode that's this RPG like Adventure Mode that's basically all meant to be a single player experience.

 

[Guynamednelson]

I just wanted to ask, do people here like Smash's gameplay, or do they just prefer the crossover aspect? Would they prefer it if it was a different genre entirely? Small tweaks to current formula, like the concept but would completely change the genre, are only in love with the concept but can't be bothered to think of any better genre, think it's absurd that people suggest anything different than what we have now, etc? Even stuff like roster theming? Like first parties or third parties.. Not trying to start a flame war but I'm legitimately curious on people's views on smash's current concept... Just in general, what are your views on this?

I honestly am worried about people seeing Smash as less of a game, and more of a tool for earning Twitter clout from placing Mario next to the new DLC character and/or helping Nintendo make money. It's kind of why I don't want an Ultimate port, because I believe such a desire is solely about roster size and not gameplay. Hell it isn't guaranteed an Ultimate port will outsell the Switch version, MK8 Deluxe's sales are mostly to do with it not being on a flop of a console.

I wasn't talking about long-term licensing. I was talking about the inane suggestion to cut 3rd party as playable characters but keeping them for Mii costumes or something else. In such a scenario, they'd still be licensing them.

Fair enough.

 

[Trevenant]

That's because Tankman is making a bad faith argument.

It isn't about legality or even logic. It's about characters they like being in and the ones they don't like being excluded.

It's why they said things like Mega Man is supposedly okay, but Ryu is bound to be legally problematic.

Its... lowkey dumb.

I have to add I think it's a bit more than that... Don't wanna sound rude, but I'm pretty sure they just heard others throwing the wording around and just took it and started upholding the concept since, regardless of how much sense or how arbitrary it may be... If someone likes something, they're likely gonna be throwing it around or bringing it up in appropriate discussions without just being a loyalist to the topic out of nowhere...

I'm a fan of the gameplay, and I doubt Smash is ever gonna stray from it, seeing as Smash Bros literally invented the platformer fighting genre. Might even say, platformer fighting crossover genre, cause that's what many games that follow Smash's gameplay do. Jump Super Stars and Nickelodeon All Star Brawl are the most famous examples of this.

However, I don't play all these other games. As I'm not as much a fan of their rosters of characters as much as am I fan of all the Nintendo and partners games and franchises that came into Smash. So, I guess the answer is the crossover aspect.

I'd buy a Smash JRPG or any sort of RPG, or an adventure game, a 3D platformer, a beat em up or a classic fighting game as long as the gameplay is satisfying, doesn't stray too much from Smash and keeps certain core elements, and of course does it best to bring back the cast we all know and love.

Ideally though, I'd mix Smash with a few of the elements of the genres above, I think it could mix well. A more action based Paper Mario sort of RPG is a direction I could see working, even if it's only for say, a Adventure Mode for the main game. Smash tried to add certain RPG elements over the course of the series anyway you know.

With that being said, I could again, envision a Smash Ultimate Deluxe game, coupled with a brand new Smash on the same console that focusses more on single player than multiplayer. Or! We get Smash Ultimate Deluxe with a DLC Adventure Mode that's this RPG like Adventure Mode that's basically all meant to be a single player experience.

Now that you mention it, WoL does dip a lot into some other genres with all the stuff you're able to do like the fusions etc... That but expanded could lowkey be a fun little minigame based on a genre that obviously carry full 100hr+ games.

I honestly am worried about people seeing Smash as less of a game, and more of a tool for earning Twitter clout from placing Mario next to the new DLC character and/or helping Nintendo make money. It's kind of why I don't want an Ultimate port, because I believe such a desire is solely about roster size and not gameplay. Hell it isn't guaranteed an Ultimate port will outsell the Switch version, MK8 Deluxe's sales are mostly to do with it not being on a flop of a console.

Yeah, that's my thinking... The idea of new genres I think somewhat blends into that.... Not really about fame and clout but more so wanting smash to change genres... Other games experimenting with that could be cool tho... Like a crossover RPG could be cool...

Somewhat unrelated but I really liked Sega heroes when that was a thing... It was still a mobile game, but a pretty neat mobile game nonetheless... And the devs were surprisingly honest... Although again, I guess it was a mobile game.

 

[Guynamednelson]

The idea of new genres I think somewhat blends into that.... Not really about fame and clout but more so wanting smash to change genres

I may not have mentioned it, but I think wanting Smash to stop being a platform fighter and start being a different kind of game still falls under the category of seeing Smash as less a game and more of a moneymaking tool. I guess they could do some kind of spinoff thing for phones, but please for the love of god do not let Ultimate be the last platform fighter in the Smash series.

 

[ARandomFruit]

I just wanted to ask, do people here like Smash's gameplay, or do they just prefer the crossover aspect? Would they prefer it if it was a different genre entirely? Small tweaks to current formula, like the concept but would completely change the genre, are only in love with the concept but can't be bothered to think of any better genre, think it's absurd that people suggest anything different than what we have now, etc? Even stuff like roster theming? Like first parties or third parties.. Not trying to start a flame war but I'm legitimately curious on people's views on smash's current concept... Just in general, what are your views on this?

I really enjoy Smash's gameplay and I think Ultimate is the perfect speed for me in a platform fighter. Other games like NASB and Melee feel too fast for me and feels too competitive, if that makes any sense. I wouldn't mind small tweaks here and there but I wouldn't want any big changes. Looking at other peoples suggestions on how to spice it up leaves a weird taste in my mouth that makes me wish Smash would stay similar to Ultimate. I do want a Project X Zone style RPG but with characters from Smash but it's mostly because RPGs are my favorite genre of games and I wouldn't want it to replace Smash at all.

 

[SKX31]

Has smash ever been ported?

Yes actually - Smash 64 was ported to the iQue player, a portable internet-connected N64 and Nintendo's first (semi*-)official foray into China, 2005. Not that the console did well at all - in fact it sold only around 10K (most people there dismissed it as pirate stuff) - but it's kinda instrumental to how future Smash ports might come to be. On Nintendo's consoles (unless the video game landscape changes to the point consoles are no longer worth it) and there needs to be a percieved justification for it from their PoVs.

*(Putting this here since not only was it released under the iQue brand, consoles were officially illegal in China from 2000 up until 2014.)

At this rate, even Nintendo might have to start acquiring more studios. Tencent and Netease have done more industry consolidation in a few years than ANY of the big three have across their collective history...

Wait, this needs to be Smash-related, um... Nintendo buying other studios increases their chances of being in Smash? Yeah, I got nothing.

It's important to remember that Tencent and Netease are doing this partly because their position in China are not secure in the slightest - not with a state that readily freezes video game approvals for months on end and demands a lot of concessions in order to get games officially released. Just recently the Chinese state froze approvals and then effectively said "Okay we gotta regulate these like we do film" which is not what you call subtle.

I'm not saying this to justify the megacorps' actions to consolidate a significant chunk of the industry - Tencent recently tried to consolidate China's two big streaming services into a Mega-Twitch FTR, and although those plans fell apart it got kind of close - but we gotta be aware of the context.

So, I've been toying with ideas on how to follow up with Ultimate by soft-rebooting the gameplay in order to shake up the next game, to deal with the near-inevitability of roster cuts.

One thing that I seem to keep coming back to is giving everyone "Smash Specials." Instead of there being 4 different special moves per character, there are now 7. A neutral special, a special for up, down, and sideways performed like a tilt attack, and a special for up, down, and sideways performed like a smash attack.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, especially regarding the following questions:

1 - Do you think this fits Smash's philosophy of being "easy to learn, hard to master," in regards to control scheme?
2 - Do you think that people who have played smash for a long time will be able to adapt to the three new specials easily?
3 - In general, how much do you think the cast will need to be reworked overall in order to accommodate the new specials? Do you think most of them will mostly be the same except for the new moves, or do expect most of them to have to undergo major changes?
4 - Of all the characters in Ultimate, who do you think will be among the characters to get the largest changes to their kit?
5 - Of all the characters in Ultimate, who do you think would benefit the most from the addition of the new special moves, and who would benefit the least?
6 - Of all the characters in Ultimate, who do you think will be the easiest to make new moves for, and who would be the hardest?
7 - For characters like Ryu who have command inputs as part of their move set, do you think there will be trouble adapting them to the new control scheme?
8 - Are there any other characters who might have trouble adapting to the new control scheme?
9 - Say that the next game choses to bring over 50 veterans, for sake of scale. How much effort do you think it would take to make the changes necessary for this to happen? Approximately how many new characters do you think is equivalent to this amount of work?
10 - Overall, do you think this might be a good idea?

1. Maybe? I'm kinda leaning yes since the tilt / Smash attack system is already rather intuitive, even if it takes some time for casual players to fully learn and get used to. That said the difference between executing a tilt and a Smash attack is a fine line, and doing the same with the B button is going to result in an adjustment period.

2. I'd assume so: they're going to adapt to this idea much faster than more casual players because veterans and competitive players make adaptation a priority. The main caveat here is misinputs: it affects characters differently depending on their specials (apparantly seasoned mains would literally rather have no Side B instead of Egg Roll, partly so there's no misinput risk when they try to B-reverse Egg Lay). So Sakurai and co. would have to clamp down on that a bit.

3. All right, we're getting into a main reason why Smash is really difficult to master (and a "hidden" part of the skill curve): there's a lot of character-specific stuff and those are not going to be entirely consistent. Adding effectively 3 new moves for each character is going to be a major change no matter what, and a lot comes down to how it's executed. As for answering the question, it's really difficult to say; but leaning towards most being unchanged elsewhere since most moves work fine for what they're supposed to.

4. . MockRock did an entire video on him and raised Kirby's Specials as a main issue since the Melee days. In short the specials - while casual-friendly - do not help allieviate his approach issues and both Inhale / Final Cutter suffer from being undertuned (Stone is TBF kinda fine, Hammer is though a main sore spot due to how it works and is just a big smack - which is what Kirby does anyhow). So him gaining another 3 would presumably help him a lot. 's another obvious beneficiary since he might gain something that can actually allieviate his neutral / disadvantage / recovery issues. Out of the newer characters I wanna say since intermediate and above Shulks do not use Side B / Down B except in edge cases... but at the same time Monado Arts is central to him, so whatever Specials he gets here are going to synergize with that.

5. Yeah this is not going to be controversial: would top this again. is another strong candidate since additional specials might help out his issues with disadvantage or further synergize with his primarily offensive kit. ... hoo boy, as if his moveset wasn't "Lets make sure he has great everything (almost)" (you can probably tell I don't really like how he plays, but that's another topic). Are you tired of seeing Grenades and C4s plastered all over the stage? Too bad, because now he gets probably Tranqs and what not on top of that. As for benefit the least, I'm not sure since 3 new moves are always welcome. Depends on what those moves are. might be here since he has already four Specials that are at least a threat in certain situations, and all four of 's are very useful in certain situations too.

6. Those who have it easiest are those with straightforward playstyles. Your Ganondorfs, , etc. would presumably need Limit versions, would need Arsene versions, so they're in the difficult camp. Others who are in the difficult category would probably include and , who are decidingly unorthodox.

7. Yes, but it's also as a result of Ryu / Ken / Terry also being able to execute command inputs with the special button (something I'd like to see limited to just one button, not both at the same time, as to limit misinput risk). Still though, this is an existing concern and would probably apply to any other FGC newcomer.

8. I could see having a difficult time since suddenly one adds misinput risk to Quick Attack and Thunder. might also have some trouble adjusting since seasoned Diddy players use the B button a lot for maneuverability and various shenaningas. Assuming 's existing Specials do not get remapped / replaced he'll have increased misinput risk due to players using Spin Dash / Charge. A lot. Additionally, due to how her ARMS system currently works.

9. You're still looking at a major project. Again, 3 new Specials will majorly change the game both on a casual and a Serious Business level. This is doable IMHO, but this is also going to require the project to start instantly with that in mind. Giving an equivalent to fighters is nearly impossible, but at least 10 fighters' worth of work just to illustrate what kind of ballpark we're talking about.

10. This is an interesting idea, certainly. While I've talked in length about the misinput risk, I do think this is a good idea to at least explore since this would give practically everyone in the cast more options. More cool stuff for casual players to do, which is in the end what's important to a lot of casual players. Or references, which is a very welcome bonus to quite a few Smash fans too (both casual and competitive). And for more serious-leaning players I could see this going well. Much depends on how these are executed of course, but still.

 

[Michael the Spikester]

Again I don't want cuts but its going to happen. A new idea should at least heal the wounds.

Exactly. Imagine the matchups:

Cloud vs Ichigo
Goku vs Sonic
Min Min vs Luffy
Jotaro vs Joker
Ryu vs Yusuke
C. Falcon vs All Might etc

One idea I like is thematic rivalries. I exactly had this same idea when I attempted a project on Smash vs. Jump. Some examples.

King K. Rool vs. Black
Theme: Evil Pirates

Kirby vs. Toriko
Theme: Big Eaters

Medusa (Kid Icarus) vs. Orochimaru
Theme: Serpentine Antagonists

Meta Knight vs. Kenpachi Zaraki
Theme: Honorable Rivals

Mewtwo vs. Cell
Theme: Ultimate Lifeforms

Ness vs. Gon Freecss
Theme: Adventurous Kids

Pikachu vs. Killua Zoldyck
Theme: Electrical Fighters

Pit vs. Pegasus Seiya
Theme: Gods Chosen Champions

Pokemon Trainer vs. Yugi Moto
Theme: Summoners

Ridley vs. Frieza
Theme: Genocidal Aliens

 

[Wonder Smash]

A Smash Bros VS Shonen Jump would actually a great evolution/sequel from Ult. We already done Video Games. How about Video Games vs Anime?

Because it makes no sense for Smash Bros.

Something like that would be more fitting for a Capcom game, specifically something like Shonen Jump vs. Capcom.

Agreed. This is the direction they should go with at this point that way there will be less complaints of cuts since it'd be a different step from Smash.

No way! I like Smash the way it is and there's no reason to change it.

 

[Perkilator]

TKOWL did a pretty interesting thread!

(1/4) Guzma moveset commission for @KidSmashing! He works like Pokemon Trainer, but starts with Golisopod who is incredibly powerful but has its Emergency Exit mechanic from the core games that cycles out to Guzma's other Pokemon, Pinsir and Scizor. pic.twitter.com/spI8ot2f5O

— Ryan's Art Account (@TKOWL_Art) December 19, 2021

As someone who wishes Scizor was in Melee, it does kinda suck that it's tied to Guzma, even though I do appreciate TKOWL's efforts.

 

[Kirbeh]

Regarding Sin-cada's suggestion for "Smash Specials", why not just put them on another button? I know Smash tries to keep a simple control scheme but adding one more attack/special button wouldn't hurt imo. Honestly, I'd rather have Smash Attacks be remapped to their own button.

I don't think it'd be too big a deal for casual players to have one extra input to remember. Moreover, with the additions of (assuming they stick around for a future installment) misinputs are a bigger issue for them and any other potential newcomers that use the more traditional FG input style. Retooling one of the extra jump/grab/shield buttons for smashes or more normals/specials would be enough of an addition for me at least. I don't think the formula needs a major overhaul.

More traditional supers would be nice too, but the core gameplay has been fine as is so those would be more of a bonus in my eyes.

 

[Wonder Smash]

I think we need more of this in Smash. We got most of them so far.

 

[Trevenant]

Anyone have any sorta archetypes or new ideas they have for characters to see in the next game? Preferably new stuff so not stuff like heavy swordsman or pure rushdown etc... I wouldn't mind a cleric for one... A character based around healing and whittling the opponent's health down rather than pure combat efficiency, even if that sounds more boring than even most Zelda dittos...

 

[Sid-cada]

This is an interesting idea, certainly. While I've talked in length about the misinput risk, I do think this is a good idea to at least explore since this would give practically everyone in the cast more options. More cool stuff for casual players to do, which is in the end what's important to a lot of casual players. Or references, which is a very welcome bonus to quite a few Smash fans too (both casual and competitive). And for more serious-leaning players I could see this going well. Much depends on how these are executed of course, but still.

Thanks for the feedback! As one of the more higher-level players here, your feedback is especially interesting and useful.

I figured it would probably go over well, opportunities for missed inputs aside, and might be a chance for lower-tiered characters to get more tools to help them improve. Good to know that I was mostly right on the nose for that stuff.

Regarding Sin-cada's suggestion for "Smash Specials", why not just put them on another button? I know Smash tries to keep a simple control scheme but adding one more attack/special button wouldn't hurt imo. Honestly, I'd rather have Smash Attacks be remapped to their own button.

I don't think it'd be too big a deal for casual players to have one extra input to remember. Moreover, with the additions of (assuming they stick around for a future installment) misinputs are a bigger issue for them and any other potential newcomers that use the more traditional FG input style. Retooling one of the extra jump/grab/shield buttons for smashes or more normals/specials would be enough of an addition for me at least. I don't think the formula needs a major overhaul.

More traditional supers would be nice too, but the core gameplay has been fine as is so those would be more of a bonus in my eyes.

I figured that Smash at this point is somewhat married to its control scheme, and an important part of its identity. While adding another button could be an option, I wanted the transition between control schemes to be as easy as possible between games. I know that Nick Allstar did this, but I figured whoever would be in charge of the next smash, Sakurai or otherwise, would be reluctant to make a super big change like a new button. The fact that attacks depend on if you tilt or smash, but Specials typically don't, means that if you want to add new moves without changing the control scheme, that's an ideal way to do so.

 

[DarthEnderX]

Don't bring up Wii U ports as an example either as those games were port due to different architecture

I will bring it up because this:

Especially when the next system is going to be a Switch 2 with backward compability.

...is something you just pulled out of your ***.

Have and enjoy fun with the cut roster of 30-40 characters.

He's already said he wants all the 3rd party characters cut.

Yeah and Nintendo Allstars should happen again.

Never.

 

[SPEN18]

This argument's been around since Brawl, and it seems unnecessarily gate-keepy to me. How does anyone decide what makes it so a third party character plays an "explicitly major role in Nintendo's legacy/history"? And how do you get people to agree on defining something like that?

It seems extremely subjective (it seems like the only unquestionable one would be Mega Man - cases could be made even against the likes of Sonic or Banjo/Kazooie), and can come across as people not wanting to leave their comfort zone in my experience. (Ex. Someone's never played a King of Fighters game, and rather than giving the series a shot with one of the numerous Switch releases, they say that Terry isn't important enough to Nintendo and should be cut, even though KOF inspired the creation of Smash, Terry's been on the SNES/Gamecube/Wii/Switch among other Nintendo platforms, and SNK is clearly very willing to have content in the game)

I'm aware that it's been around since Brawl because I've made it since Brawl, just not necessarily on these forums.

How do you decide if a character is important enough to Nintendo? On a case-by-case basis. People are free to make arguments about a particular character's significance to Nintendo, but it should be their significance to Nintendo and not just general gaming significance that is primarily considered. Otherwise there's no limits or practical fairness or reasonableness to it. Of course there's going to be some subjectivity to this but:

(1) I think it's pretty clear that they've gone way too far past caring about it to the point that it detracts too much focus from the Nintendo side of the game; it also puts Smash in a weird identity crisis where it's trying to be Nintendo Allstars and gaming Allstars at the same time, which doesn't make sense;

(2) almost all of the third parties in Smash are questionable, as you say, which is why for the most part they're guests and not essential parts of the roster, liable to return or be cut depending on a number of different circumstantial factors.

In any discussion of the roster there is going to be some subjectivity involved; it's just part of the deal. But in this case, I don't think it's subjective or arbitrary to any sort of unreasonable degree.

Basically, if you're going to say this is too subjective a condition, then virtually any condition, even importance to video game media itself, must be too subjective as well.

--

As a separate argument, I don't think just being on Nintendo consoles counts for much at all on its own, especially when these games are typically much more renowned for their releases on other consoles and have very little to do, individually, with the success or history of Nintendo itself. Collectively of course third party support is important to the lifeblood of a console, but considered individually most third party games don't really represent what Nintendo itself was all about in a given time period.

"KOF inspiring Smash" and things like this mean basically nothing because any game could be inspired by any number of other games; something like this at best just makes a statement about Sakurai's personal journey as a game designer. Just because you can trace some chain of anecdotes back to inspiration from a certain game doesn't make that game important to Nintendo in and of itself; if anything this just sounds like hindsight trying to justify Terry after the fact of Terry being chosen, but correct me if I'm wrong on that.

--

We can debate about how high the bar should be set for third parties, but IMO it's pretty clear that this "anything goes" scenario that we're in now has muddied the waters much too severely.

 

[DarthEnderX]

How does anyone decide what makes it so a third party character plays an "explicitly major role in Nintendo's legacy/history"? And how do you get people to agree on defining something like that?

I'm the decider.

I just wanted to ask, do people here like Smash's gameplay, or do they just prefer the crossover aspect?

Purely based on gameplay, I'd rather be playing Street Fighter. But Smash is a nice change of pace from other fighting games.

I think we need more of this in Smash. We got most of them so far.

Hey! It's that thing I made!

 

[Kirbeh]

Thanks for the feedback! As one of the more higher-level players here, your feedback is especially interesting and useful.

I figured it would probably go over well, opportunities for missed inputs aside, and might be a chance for lower-tiered characters to get more tools to help them improve. Good to know that I was mostly right on the nose for that stuff.



I figured that Smash at this point is somewhat married to its control scheme, and an important part of its identity. While adding another button could be an option, I wanted the transition between control schemes to be as easy as possible between games. I know that Nick Allstar did this, but I figured whoever would be in charge of the next smash, Sakurai or otherwise, would be reluctant to make a super big change like a new button. The fact that attacks depend on if you tilt or smash, but Specials typically don't, means that if you want to add new moves without changing the control scheme, that's an ideal way to do so.

I can understand the reluctance on both the dev and the player sides. Outside of a few optional macros the controls for Smash have remained the same for the entire series. That said, I do think in some cases it's getting to the point where they could potentially be cramming too much onto a few buttons.

Again, I bring up the shotos who have their light. medium and heavy attacks all crammed into the A button along with the ability to even do specials from that same button. Being able to do fireball, tatsu, and DP from a normal attack button using motions is great, and it does feel pretty natural for the most part. Plus, it is of course, completely optional. My gripe here though is that misinputs can still be quite common with all these different moves being mapped to the same button.

While I can just stick to B for Specials. I may still at times input one using the A button anyway when trying to do something else. Same goes for normals from time to time. And of course, take what I've said here and multiply it for Kazuya.

It does only take a bit of practice to get used to them, and the fighting game crew are among the characters I play the most because I like how faithful they've managed to make them within Smash Bros.' limitations. This doesn't only apply to those few characters though.

As the series goes on, and characters with more complex move sets (or additional moves/actions across the board) are added I just worry that we may reach a situation where stubbornness regarding the controls makes what's intended to be simple and straightforward into more of a cluttered mess confined to a two-button control scheme.

I know I'm likely in the minority on this one, but I would rather have more actions mapped to particular buttons even if it's at the cost of the classic control scheme. Or at the very least more options for the control menu to satisfy weirdos like me idk

 

[Tankman from Newgrounds]

That's because Tankman is making a bad faith argument.

It isn't about legality or even logic. It's about characters they like being in and the ones they don't like being excluded.

It's why they said things like Mega Man is supposedly okay, but Ryu is bound to be legally problematic.

Its... lowkey dumb.

You know what?
Screw it. Everyone drom Video Games can join smash and I don't care if it's Third Party or First Party, at least it's celebration of Gaming. Whole Gaming History.

 

[pupNapoleon]

I know this isn't the right board. but. I'm actually heartbroken for the first time in ten years. And I'm both happy to have reawakened the romantic, and in so much pain I cannot tolerate accomplishing the smallest of tasks.

 

[Dinoman96]

Like I said before...it's kinda apparent that most of the people who insist that "Everyone is here!" was a bad idea and that the roster, particurly the third party lineup, needs to be cut down are probably just folks angry that their MW character didn't get into this game. Like Nabbitfan up there who's a Geno fan and SPEN18 who, judging by their avatar, was probably advocating for some of Nintendo's smaller mid-2000s era characters like Isaac.

Naturally many of them probably have the (mis)conception that these big hype third party characters are taking away the "spots" for the characters they wanted. And also the fact that EiH took resources/spots away from more potential first party candidates.

 

[Tankman from Newgrounds]

Like I said before...it's kinda apparent that most of the people who insist that "Everyone is here!" was a bad idea and that the roster, particurly the third party lineup, needs to be cut down are probably just folks angry that their MW character didn't get into this game. Like Nabbitfan up there who's a Geno fan and SPEN18 who, judging by their avatar, was probably advocating for some of Nintendo's smaller mid-2000s era characters like Isaac.

Or even 80's and 90's Nintendo rep like Mach Rider or Lip.

 

[Yamat08]

I can understand the reluctance on both the dev and the player sides. Outside of a few optional macros the controls for Smash have remained the same for the entire series. That said, I do think in some cases it's getting to the point where they could potentially be cramming too much onto a few buttons.

Again, I bring up the shotos who have their light. medium and heavy attacks all crammed into the A button along with the ability to even do specials from that same button. Being able to do fireball, tatsu, and DP from a normal attack button using motions is great, and it does feel pretty natural for the most part. Plus, it is of course, completely optional. My gripe here though is that misinputs can still be quite common with all these different moves being mapped to the same button.

While I can just stick to B for Specials. I may still at times input one using the A button anyway when trying to do something else. Same goes for normals from time to time. And of course, take what I've said here and multiply it for Kazuya.

It does only take a bit of practice to get used to them, and the fighting game crew are among the characters I play the most because I like how faithful they've managed to make them within Smash Bros.' limitations. This doesn't only apply to those few characters though.

As the series goes on, and characters with more complex move sets (or additional moves/actions across the board) are added I just worry that we may reach a situation where stubbornness regarding the controls makes what's intended to be simple and straightforward into more of a cluttered mess confined to a two-button control scheme.

I know I'm likely in the minority on this one, but I would rather have more actions mapped to particular buttons even if it's at the cost of the classic control scheme. Or at the very least more options for the control menu to satisfy weirdos like me idk

It is worth considering that, ever since Brawl, they've made Smash compatible with just the Wii remote and other simple, two-button controllers. It does result in a lot of repeat buttons on more complex controllers, but it also adds to the accessibility that Smash had always been going for (especially since a lot of Wii or Switch owners only have the default controllers, with some also opting to use one Joycon per person in multi-player). Personally, I'm fine with it, and don't think it needs change. Plus, it's not like those of us with a GameCube or Pro controller are completely bereft of a few advantages (aside from the general feel, we also get more button-mapping options, which I prefer to use by putting tilt attacks on the C-stick).

 

[AlRex]

This thread kind of goes in circles, it seems. People are really married to a lot of the same things, whatever that “same thing” is. I think Nintendo VS CAPCOM or SEGA would be cool, but I’ve already said that. Shonen Jump got briefly discussed. Disney would be a cluster****, but interesting to see if they could pull it off. Project X Smash Zone with a Nintendo/SEGA/CAPCOM/Namco roster and some minor JRPG elements (or at least, a decent Adventure Mode), though that sounds potentially awkward.

More of the exact same as Ultimate doesn’t really interest me, so I would want a long break and/or some experiments. I would much prefer seeing a different developer or genre take on the overall Nintendo crossover thing, not as a substitute for Smash, mind you, it’s own thing. I don’t really want Super Smash Madden. Take a while before the next traditional installment, mostly for a long rest but also because I can’t see much besides basically just another Fighter’s Pass if we just do another traditional Smash this soon. Maybe me saying this aggravates some people, I dunno.

 

[Tankman from Newgrounds]

This thread kind of goes in circles, it seems. People are really married to a lot of the same things, whatever that “same thing” is. I think Nintendo VS CAPCOM or SEGA would be cool, but I’ve already said that. Shonen Jump got briefly discussed. Disney would be a cluster****, but interesting to see if they could pull it off. Project X Smash Zone with a Nintendo/SEGA/CAPCOM/Namco roster and some minor JRPG elements (or at least, a decent Adventure Mode), though that sounds potentially awkward.

More of the exact same as Ultimate doesn’t really interest me, so I would want a long break and/or some experiments. I would much prefer seeing a different developer or genre take on the overall Nintendo crossover thing, not as a substitute for Smash, mind you, it’s own thing. I don’t really want Super Smash Madden. Take a while before the next traditional installment, mostly for a long rest but also because I can’t see much besides basically just another Fighter’s Pass if we just do another traditional Smash this soon. Maybe me saying this aggravates some people, I dunno.

Yeah, Smash Vs Disney could be Quantity Game.
Good thing we stay with "Video Game Characters only" rule, because if we didn't had it, it would be hugest nightmare ever made.

 

[Diddy Kong]

Like I said before...it's kinda apparent that most of the people who insist that "Everyone is here!" was a bad idea and that the roster, particurly the third party lineup, needs to be cut down are probably just folks angry that their MW character didn't get into this game. Like Nabbitfan up there who's a Geno fan and SPEN18 who, judging by their avatar, was probably advocating for some of Nintendo's smaller mid-2000s era characters like Isaac.

Naturally many of them probably have the (mis)conception that these big hype third party characters are taking away the "spots" for the characters they wanted. And also the fact that EiH took resources/spots away from more potential first party candidates.

Maybe it doesn't even have to be this way. I actually think Isaac has quite good chances on his own, and not having to rely on other characters getting cut. Golden Sun is likely to follow up getting a Advance Wars like remake, always thought so. Isaac also did pretty well on the ballot I assume.

Geno honestly... How much of a chance did he really have if Hero and Sephiroth, and of course Cloud before them are so much bigger namesakes than Geno? There's just no way around it, Hero is especially popular in Japan and Dragon Quest is a huge gaming franchise. Sephiroth is one of gamings biggest icons. Geno supporters would do well trying to lower their expectations. The Mii Gunner costume wasn't a bad deal for Geno, it's basically how Geno would play in a broad sense. Nintendo and Square did no effort bringing Super Mario RPG to Europe, or ever remake the game, or continue it's legacy beyond what Nintendo did with Paper Mario. And even Paper Mario lost most RPG elements and became its own thing.

I to would prefer more first party characters, but I can't deny that Smash has again introduced me to a great deal of new franchises with third party additions, and specific games I probably wouldn't really otherwise play due to my Nintendo bias as FF7, Dragon Quest 11, and even if it doesn't count as a third party game, XenoBlade Chronicles 2. Never regretted these decisions, all great games.

People would indeed do best looking beyond their comfort zones when it comes to third party franchises, and Fire Emblem to. I cannot imagine so much hate toward Fire Emblem especially despite so many quality games coming to the West since Fire Emblem 7.

 

[Megadoomer]

Like I said before...it's kinda apparent that most of the people who insist that "Everyone is here!" was a bad idea and that the roster, particurly the third party lineup, needs to be cut down are probably just folks angry that their MW character didn't get into this game. Like Nabbitfan up there who's a Geno fan and SPEN18 who, judging by their avatar, was probably advocating for some of Nintendo's smaller mid-2000s era characters like Isaac.

Naturally many of them probably have the (mis)conception that these big hype third party characters are taking away the "spots" for the characters they wanted. And also the fact that EiH took resources/spots away from more potential first party candidates.

If that's the case, then having that stance makes even less sense - Geno's a third party character, so severely limiting the amount of third party characters would shrink his chances to almost nothing, while removing third party characters entirely would make it outright impossible for him to be included.

(I find it weird that Square-Enix is maintaining such an iron-fisted grip on the rights for Geno even though they seemingly can't use the character and Nintendo would presumably have no problem with bringing him back for spin-offs, while they seemingly let the artists and composers have full control over the original art and music for their flagship games, if Final Fantasy's pre-Sephiroth Smash presence and the Dragon Quest composer needing to specifically be credited are any indication)

I get the idea that cutting third party characters would make someone like Isaac or Bandanna Dee more likely, but that mindset seems weird to me. I can't imagine why someone would look at that hypothetical line-up and go "well, this Smash game removed Sonic, Banjo and Kazooie, Sora, Cloud Strife, etc., but Isaac was added, so I'm calling this a win."

I agree that it comes across that way, where people wanted one specific character and they think that cutting most/all third party characters will somehow make that character's inclusion more likely for the next game.

 

[osby]

If that's the case, then having that stance makes even less sense - Geno's a third party character, so severely limiting the amount of third party characters would shrink his chances to almost nothing, while removing third party characters entirely would make it outright impossible for him to be included.

Okay, but that stance is perfectly common.

First-party purists always count a few of their favorites (usually Sonic, Banjo and other scrimblos) as "honorary Nintendo characters" and therefore exceptions.

 

[Tankman from Newgrounds]

Okay, but that stance is perfectly common.

First-party purists always count a few of their favorites (usually Sonic, Banjo and other scrimblos) as "honorary Nintendo characters" and therefore exceptions.

Yes, it has a point.
But still some Third Parties won't make into Sequel/Reboot like Joker or Terry.

 

[Dinoman96]

(I find it weird that Square-Enix is maintaining such an iron-fisted grip on the rights for Geno even though they seemingly can't use the character and Nintendo would presumably have no problem with bringing him back for spin-offs, while they seemingly let the artists and composers have full control over the original art and music for their flagship games, if Final Fantasy's pre-Sephiroth Smash presence and the Dragon Quest composer needing to specifically be credited are any indication)

It is really weird that SE managed to keep the rights to all of the original Mario RPG content, whereas so many of their other games like Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, and apparently even Chrono Trigger have all these legal issues with other shareholders/parties involved. You'd think Nintendo would own Geno just as Disney owns Sora, much like how Nintendo retained the rights to Rare's DKC and Star Fox Adventures characters after the Microsoft buyout.

I'm not sure about Nintendo presumably having no problem with using Geno in spin-off games, though. We're lucky to even get Diddy Kong in Mario spinoffs now lol, and that's a character Nintendo owns.

 

[Megadoomer]

It is really weird that SE managed to keep the rights to all of the original Mario RPG content, whereas so many of their other games like Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, and apparently even Chrono Trigger have all these legal issues with other shareholders/parties involved. You'd think Nintendo would own Geno just as Disney owns Sora, much like how Nintendo retained the rights to Rare's DKC and Star Fox Adventures characters after the Microsoft buyout.

I'm not sure about Nintendo presumably having no problem with using Geno in spin-off games, though. We're lucky to even get Diddy Kong in Mario spinoffs now lol, and that's a character Nintendo owns.

Yeah, that's true - you'd think that we would have gotten Fawful in Mario Kart or Tennis by now.

 

[Perkilator]

I genuinely want to know who or what at SEGA is preventing Smash from getting another Sonic rep. Shadow missed the train as an Echo Fighter and Dr. Eggman missed the train for DLC (the latter of which would've also been good timing for the 30th anniversary).

 

[Deleted member]

Yes, it has a point.
But still some Third Parties won't make into Sequel/Reboot like Joker or Terry.

Honestly I feel like there's there's decent chance Terry will stay as long as they still want him in. Even if it's DLC again. SNK where super generous with content and considering the high amount of crossovers they do they seem super easy to work with. Joker I'm less confident on on but there's a chance.

We're probably not seeing a new smash for like 5 years at least so a lot could change obviously.

 

[Megadoomer]

Yes, it has a point.
But still some Third Parties won't make into Sequel/Reboot like Joker or Terry.

SNK practically seems to be giving permission to use Terry to anyone who asks, and given how likely Sonic is, it seems like other Sega veterans would be on the table, at least. I'm not sure if those are the best examples.

 

[Guynamednelson]

I can't imagine why someone would look at that hypothetical line-up and go "well, this Smash game removed Sonic, Banjo and Kazooie, Sora, Cloud Strife, etc., but Isaac was added, so I'm calling this a win."

You think Isaac fans would actually appreciate cutting Banjo? People really need to remember why the bear and the puppet became popular among Smash fans in the first place.

 

[Trevenant]

You think Isaac fans would actually appreciate cutting Banjo? People really need to remember why the bear and the puppet became popular among Smash fans in the first place.

I assume it's more of a general example regarding the people who apparently want all third parties cut and are kinda trolling in other aspects... Not necessarily Isaac specifically

 

[Megadoomer]

You think Isaac fans would actually appreciate cutting Banjo? People really need to remember why the bear and the puppet became popular among Smash fans in the first place.

I'm not meaning anything against Isaac fans - I haven't played much of Golden Sun, but looking up the list of spells and Djinn abilities from the first game alone, I can totally understand why people want him in. I'm referring to the sort of people who think that most/all third party characters need to be cut in the next game, and used him as an example because he was brought up.

I just mean that I can't think that any new character would be worth it if it took cutting every single third party character (or most of them) for that character to be more likely to be included. I'd love to see the likes of Impa (or any new Zelda character, really), Bandanna Waddle Dee, Isaac from Golden Sun, Dixie Kong, Andy from Advance Wars, Captain Toad, Alexandra Roivas from Eternal Darkness, etc. make it in, but not at the expense of the whole third party line-up.

 

[Guynamednelson]

I'm not meaning anything against Isaac fans - I haven't played much of Golden Sun, but looking up the list of spells and Djinn abilities from the first game alone, I can totally understand why people want him in. I'm referring to the sort of people who think that most/all third party characters need to be cut in the next game, and used him as an example because he was brought up.

I just mean that I can't think that any new character would be worth it if it took cutting every single third party character (or most of them) for that character to be more likely to be included. I'd love to see the likes of Impa (or any new Zelda character, really), Bandanna Waddle Dee, Isaac from Golden Sun, Dixie Kong, Andy from Advance Wars, Captain Toad, Alexandra Roivas from Eternal Darkness, etc. make it in, but not at the expense of the whole third party line-up.

I was mainly concerned because I see people using Banjo and even Geno as an example of why Smash should ignore first-parties entirely, when they're not really any better off than anyone Nintendo owns who's never received another game since the DS and their fans hate that Rare was bought by Microsoft and Nintendo never got the rights to anyone/anything created for SMRPG.

 

[Dinoman96]

For what it's worth, I do think Isaac may of had decent odds of being playable if they were somehow able to have a "normal" (like I dunno, around 15) amount of newcomers in the base game on top of all the returning veterans.

It's just that, well, Ultimate only had six non-echo newcomers in the base game, and only five of them were even completely unique. Isaac was just never going to get in over Ridley, K. Rool, Inkling, Isabelle, Simon and even Incineroar, and it's pretty obvious at this point that first party DLC for Smash is reserved exclusively for contemporary "promotional" characters ( in Smash 4, in Ultimate).

So in that sense he kinda was one of the bigger victims of "Everyone is here!". Really it's the same thing with other first parties like Bandana Dee or whatever.

 

[Chuderz]

Finally saw the verge interview and yeah Sakurai I would be heavily disappointed. It would seem like a total waste to throw away all that work, not to mention the unused work in Smash 4 still untapped into a new game. The sacrifice for Everyone Is Here was losing out all newcomers but an Ultimate DX wouldn't have that problem so it'd be insanely more substantial a game. There are barely any missing stages and modes and just why wouldn't you capitalize on that? Get the lawyers ready and start negotiating now because you certainly have the time. Then there's the double release strategy idea of repackaging the third-party content into an expansion pack type game where you must buy the base game to gain access to purchasing said expansion pass.

I get that the bar has been raised but that's exactly what got Smash back into the wider mainstream's good graces. Nintendo can be expected to actually put some even more serious investment into this series. Add seasonal costume/mii fighter packs to make said investment worth it or something. Support a serious esports circuit to acquire sponsorship deals. Nintendo has already been offered the most absurdly generous of deals in regards to this.

Leaving Everyone is Here behind is a serious blemish and I hate it. The toxic GameFAQs scum wins out and the shrink the roster crowd now has legs to stand on for the entire hibernation cycle. Great.

Oh well I don't even know anymore. I know Sakurai has expressed a similar sentiment after Brawl's launch and he's just coming off of the development of two consecutive titles in the series (NOT one full game as people like to lump them in together as now that it's convenient) but damn that one hurt. I hope he's just riffing or even better trying to misdirect for the surprise return of Ultimate years down the line but that kind of **** is so speculative that I don't even want to bother.

Smash is flat-out less without Everyone is Here. Smash should be above roster/content cuts now. If an MMORPG like WOW can stretch things out for 20 years then Smash can easily do it too. If it's licensing then actually make some money off the series then. Launching Ultimate DX with a base and expansion pack is serious money. Seasonal/alternative costumes/mii fighters/music packs are serious money. A heavily invested in Esports circuit is serious money and that's especially true with the likes of Melee's competitive scene being a grassroots stable for almost 20 years now. Nintendo has yet to even capitalize on freaking Melee's scene! If they were smart they could also capitalize on Project + and 64 Remix's scenes as well. The means of keeping the likes of Knuckles and Conker couldn't even begin to pose an actually serious issue with Nintendo. It's stupid pride and the typical hostility of their antiquated philosophy.

If it's seriously a money issue then it's Nintendo that leaving money on the table and they should stop doing that.