Official Next Smash - Speculation & Discussion Thread

[Will]

It's a dead horse but things would be a lot easier if you could switch between hazards on/off like you could normal/BF/Omega forms.

Honestly I think sometimes it's the competitive scene that thinks "No Items, Fox Only, Final Destination" is supposed to be how competitive Smash is supposed to be played. A lot of stages that are banned in competitive Ultimate are ones that are still legal in Melee/Brawl/4, even with their lack of hazard toggles, and hazardless WarioWare isn't banned in competitive PM.

I agree. I believe the suspiciously anonymous bureaucracy of Smash tournaments holds outdated ideas and beliefs on how competitive Smash is run.

I don’t know if it’s just me because I don’t really follow the competitive scene but it almost seems like a wasted effort trying to cater so much to the competitive community. They’re the reason Battlefield and Omega variants even exist and apparently they don’t even get used in competitive play. I feel like the focus should just be on making fun stages and if the competitive scene doesn’t like it, there’s always vanilla Battlefield. Part of what makes Smash Smash to me is the platforming aspect of the stage layouts. If you remove all that, you might as well just make a traditional fighter. Not saying Smash is at that point yet, just seems to be trending that way.

It’s just you and your ignorance.

 

[Scrimblo Bimblo]

Speaking of music remixes, maaaan that White Land / Death Wind medley that they added in F-Zero 99's new secret track goes HARD. I need it in the next Smash.

I'm liking F-Zero 99 so much. I wanted a proper follow-up to GX but they really nailed gameplay, presentation and even content with this game.
It would be cool if it got a stage in the next Smash, the Skyway mechanic would make it different enough from the SNES Mute City stage that's already in Ultimate.

 

[Louie G.]

Also worth mentioning that the Alpha variants were a major step up from Smash 4's approach. I don't really play on Omega stages that much, Final Destination is great of course but the whole meme about no items FD doesn't really paint an accurate picture. Gengar had a point in saying Smash's platforming aspect is one of its strong suits - which Battlefield emphasizes more directly. So that is my preference because it plays to the strengths of Smash's unique gameplay elements while also not being distracting in its wacky layout or luck-based mechanics. And as I mentioned before, I get a lot of mileage out of jumping to different variants on the principle of hearing Pac-Man music or wanting to see Metroid stage backgrounds, or whatever.

I'm not necessarily a competitive player in the traditional sense of the word, I skew that way but I haven't attended a tournament in a long time and well... I honestly don't think I'm all that good anymore, I'm not as fresh as I used to be. But I think Smash's diverse character selection and the slew of wacky and flashy special attacks still makes Smash as goofy and unpredictable as ever. I like throwing on items from time to time for a great casual experience with friends too, so I'm just happy that Smash has options that allow me to pick and choose.

Personally, I DO think that's worth the development time. Casual players are still the ones that get the most love in Smash, with fantastical stage design and hazards and new items, Assist Trophies etc. I do think Final Smashes took a hit, but it doesn't seem like anybody really likes that decision. But in general, I don't think the means of creating a more accessible and varied experience for competitive players is taking away from anyone else's fun. They are a large part of the playerbase now, growing with every single game, and while it doesn't get that much play in tournament I can certainly speak on my own behalf and say I appreciate the Alpha stage addition and see it used all the time online. Saying nah, we should ignore those guys and if they don't like it they can stick to base Battlefield is just a little bit ignorant. I know Gengar wasn't intending to be rude but it's not a good sentiment and I think Smash's wide range of ways to play may literally be its strongest asset.

 

[Gengar84]

Yeah, maybe I was a little too harsh on that point. I do agree that more options are better and I’d have less of an issue if the competitive scene actually used any of these variants. It’s just kind of disappointing to hear that all that effort to appeal to that crowd gets mostly passed over by those same people. I never really play on Omega or Battlefield stages but I don’t really have an issue with them existing. I was actually fully on board with them when I thought they were actually serving their intended purpose and giving the competitive scene some stage variety. You’re right though that they can appeal to more than just tournament players so they’re probably a net benefit overall. If they’re relatively low resource intensive, then I feel like they should stick around. I’d personally rather have a good single player mode or a wider stage variety but those probably require different amounts of dedication.

I apologize if my earlier post came off as rude or dismissive. I didn’t mean to say that Smash should just ignore the competitive scene, just that it seems like their efforts aren’t really paying off if those people don’t use those variants or many of the simpler “Battlefield-esque” stages for one reason or another. Maybe the solution is to consult with actual tournament players and events to see what they actually want instead of dropping the idea altogether. Sorry again for any misunderstanding.

 

[Gorgonzales]

What does everyone think about the general stage direction in modern Smash games? I personally think Smash 64 and Melee had the formula down pretty perfectly but since then, the stages have gone a bit two far in one of two directions. They’re either way too gimmicky with things like boss battles that really interrupt the flow of battle or they are basically reskinned Battlefields with everything interesting going on in the background. There are definitely some exceptions like Suzaku Castle that capture the old style of stage design but I’d love to see a lot more.

Something I’d love to see is if we get a platformer character, take a section of one of their stages from their games that has an interesting layout but fitting for battle and modernize the design but keep the layout. Alternatively, we could get a brand new layout that just feels like it could have been part of the stage. I might be in the minority on this one but one of my favorite parts of Smash were the fun stage layouts and I feel like that has been lacking recently. They really helped the game stand out and emphasize the playformer aspect of the genre. We already have Omega and Battlefield versions for competitive play so I don’t think that should factor in too much.

Wasn't a fan of Smash 4's direction for stages, I liked Ultimate's a little more.

I do stand by that we need more unique layouts for tamer stages, like new tri and quad-platform layouts. Stuff like these simple mod stage layouts would be nice.

All I ask for the next game is mostly new stages and also focus on locales that don't come from world 1 of their respective games because it's getting really irritating.

Also, I don't mind the direction for having more energetic remixes suited for battle. It makes complete and total sense to me.

 

[fogbadge]

Wasn't a fan of Smash 4's direction for stages, I liked Ultimate's a little more.

I do stand by that we need more unique layouts for tamer stages, like new tri and quad-platform layouts. Stuff like these simple mod stage layouts would be nice.

View attachment 383474View attachment 383475
View attachment 383476

All I ask for the next game is mostly new stages and also focus on locales that don't come from world 1 of their respective games because it's getting really irritating.

Also, I don't mind the direction for having more energetic remixes suited for battle. It makes complete and total sense to me.

Can’t say I’m a fan of those designs, doesn’t really look like you’re fighting on the locations

 

[Gengar84]

Can’t say I’m a fan of those designs, doesn’t really look like you’re fighting on the locations

Yeah, they’re fine but I don’t find them as immersive as the actual stages those variants are based on. They’re a step up from straight Battlefield clones but I don’t personally find them exciting. Like I said, I think I’m in the minority here and if simpler stages are what the majority want, that’s what they should do. I realize Smash doesn’t exist to cater to my personal preferences. I do feel like I made a mistake earlier by making it sound like my opinion was a fact and they needed to change something because I didn’t care for it. That’s my mistake.

 

[Gorgonzales]

Can’t say I’m a fan of those designs, doesn’t really look like you’re fighting on the locations

Yeah, they’re fine but I don’t find them as immersive as the actual stages those variants are based on. They’re a step up from straight Battlefield clones but I don’t personally find them exciting. Like I said, I think I’m in the minority here and if simpler stages are what the majority want, that’s what they should do. I realize Smash doesn’t exist to cater to my personal preferences. I do feel like I made a mistake earlier by making it sound like my opinion was a fact and they needed to change something because I didn’t care for it. That’s my mistake.

Well I didn't mean these stage themes specifically, just these layouts that can be used for future stages. For example I could feasibly see any one of these being used for a Mario stage or Yoshi stage since those tend to not really based on a specific locale, just a level (not the case for 3d Mario but I'm talking 2d Mario here.)

 

[Gengar84]

Well I didn't mean these stage themes specifically, just these layouts that can be used for future stages. For example I could feasibly see any one of these being used for a Mario stage or Yoshi stage since those tend to not really based on a specific locale, just a level (not the case for 3d Mario but I'm talking 2d Mario here.)

Yeah, I was referring to the general stage layouts. My personal preference is something closer to Hyrule Castle or Saffron City from Smash 64 or Hyrule Temple from Melee. I really liked that those stages made it really feel like you were in the location. That’s something I feel like the floating platforms of Battlefield type stages never really captured for me. I know most people don’t have the same preferences as me (about much of anything really lol) and that’s fine.

 

[Gorgonzales]

Yeah, I was referring to the general stage layouts. My personal preference is something closer to Hyrule Castle or Saffron City from Smash 64 or Hyrule Temple from Melee. I really liked that those stages made it really feel like you were in the location. That’s something I feel like the floating platforms of Battlefield type stages never really captured. I know most people don’t have the same preferences as me and that’s fine.

Fair enough. I still believe those kinds of stages can co-exist with these, they just need to hit the right balance between Smash 4 and Ultimate type stages.

 

[Gengar84]

Fair enough. I still believe those kinds of stages can co-exist with these, they just need to hit the right balance between Smash 4 and Ultimate type stages.

I agree there. I think there’s plenty of room for both kinds of stages in Smash. I was only saying that I feel that there are less and less 64 style stages these days that really make you feel like you’re in the environment. I think I just suck at explaining things today lol.

 

[fogbadge]

Yeah, I was referring to the general stage layouts. My personal preference is something closer to Hyrule Castle or Saffron City from Smash 64 or Hyrule Temple from Melee. I really liked that those stages made it really feel like you were in the location. That’s something I feel like the floating platforms of Battlefield type stages never really captured for me. I know most people don’t have the same preferences as me (about much of anything really lol) and that’s fine.

yeah I certainly prefer stages that feel like you’re fighting on the location

speaking of stages I do think we should have a few more stages based on iconic reoccurring locations. not just Bowser’s Castle but things like Death Mountain and Lake Hylia

 

[Louie G.]

Also, I don't mind the direction for having more energetic remixes suited for battle. It makes complete and total sense to me.

Having those remixes isn't the problem, just the implication that one should come at the expense of or is more valuable than another. Every other game had a little of both the more high octane arrangements and sillier / unorthodox ones, so I don't think the direction needed to change in any specific way.

I still like most of the new arrangements in Ultimate but a handful of them stood out to me as over-correcting for past remixes that were already good.

 

[Gengar84]

I wonder if I’m just imagining this all in my head just because two of the stages I was most excited about ended up being Battlefield variants with everything interesting in the background. It’s possible the issue isn’t as widespread as I’m making it out to be and I’m just overly focusing on those two stages. I think part of it is seeing how most Ultimate stage mods are either Alpha skins or simplified versions of existing stages that don’t personally appeal to me where I felt Brawl stage mods were a lot more interesting. Its possible that my issue is more with mods than the actual game and I’m unfairly projecting that onto the base game.

I think my only real issue with the base game stages are that I feel that simplified “Battlefield-esque” stages like Hollow Bastion are a bit redundant if we already have Battlefield and Omega variants for every stage. I don’t have an issue with either approach individually but it feels like a bit of a missed opportunity in combination.

 

[Sucumbio]

I love this song so much and it works so well for me in Smash especially on the bridge of eldin and the lighting is just barely dusk-like, the whole atmosphere of this combination is quite moving and whenever I'm playing and it's this it's like a big dose of contentment.

 

[Gengar84]

I love this song so much and it works so well for me in Smash especially on the bridge of eldin and the lighting is just barely dusk-like, the whole atmosphere of this combination is quite moving and whenever I'm playing and it's this it's like a big dose of contentment.

Yeah, that song works really well for the stage. One thing I’d absolutely love is to get some Hyrule Warriors music in Smash. That game had such an awesome soundtrack that would be really fitting to fight to in the game. My dream is to get HW Impa as a duel rep for both the main series and the Warriors spin-offs and she could come with a bunch of tracks from the game. Is it going to happen? Probably not but I can dream lol.

 

[Gorgonzales]

I love this song so much and it works so well for me in Smash especially on the bridge of eldin and the lighting is just barely dusk-like, the whole atmosphere of this combination is quite moving and whenever I'm playing and it's this it's like a big dose of contentment.

I don't know if this is a hot take but while this song is good, I really like the remix of it in Ultimate and prefer it to the original. Same goes for the Molgera theme. Maybe I'm just weird like that, lol

That being said, yeah I probably would rather they go back to more varied remixes in the next game, since Ultimate kinda proved they're not really gonna pick songs that are more extreme in nature despite them focusing on energetic arrangements (whyyy did we get a Pikmin main theme remix and a Graden of Hope remix, the boss themes from the mainline Pikmin games are right there for them to use and they never ever get used because... reasons!!!)

 

[Garteam]

Here's a (potentially controversial) question that has been at the front of my mind recently: How many characters would another Smash game need to have to find reasonable critical or commercial success?

I think 50 is the bare minimum, but that'd have to be a roster where literally every character is a big hitter and all of the newcomers are universally beloved. 60+ characters is probably a safer number, IMO.

 

[Gorgonzales]

Here's a (potentially controversial) question that has been at the front of my mind recently: How many characters would another Smash game need to have to find reasonable critical or commercial success?

I think 50 is the bare minimum, but that'd have to be a roster where literally every character is a big hitter and all of the newcomers are universally beloved. 60+ characters is probably a safer number, IMO.

Smash will always have reasonable success no matter what the character amount is, as long as it isn't under 30 I feel. I think the next game could have drastic cuts but compensate in the quality of the characters that are here, as well as compensate in content other than the fighters like stages, modes, campaign, online (lol), etcetera.

 

[Gengar84]

Here's a (potentially controversial) question that has been at the front of my mind recently: How many characters would another Smash game need to have to find reasonable critical or commercial success?

I think 50 is the bare minimum, but that'd have to be a roster where literally every character is a big hitter and all of the newcomers are universally beloved. 60+ characters is probably a safer number, IMO.

I feel like that answer really depends on how drastic the other changes are. If there’s a huge, expansive single player like SSE, tons of veterans are overhauled and reworked, or there’s a big shift in either roster selection or gameplay mechanics, a smaller roster like 50 would be more acceptable. If it’s basically the same as Ultimate but with less characters, anything less than Ultimate’s base roster size is going to be difficult to get people excited about.

 

[Sucumbio]

Here's a (potentially controversial) question that has been at the front of my mind recently: How many characters would another Smash game need to have to find reasonable critical or commercial success?

I think 50 is the bare minimum, but that'd have to be a roster where literally every character is a big hitter and all of the newcomers are universally beloved. 60+ characters is probably a safer number, IMO.

30 to 50 total characters including DLC seems to be the average number of playable characters in a given fighting game "mid series" with an initial 12 to 16 being in the launch. Smash tho they seem to be bigger in scope so really I'd say minimum 50 base plus DLC, with 60 being even more likely. That said the next smash could tone it back to the 30-50 especially if it goes in some wacky new direction, but on a scale of 1 to 10 unlikely to likely I'm thinking a standard sequel is 7 and something like Smash 3D a low 2.

 

[Scrimblo Bimblo]

I think Melee's stage design still feels so great because it encourages you to use level geometry strategically in a way that later entries haven't replicated often. Temple's cave, the solitary rock in DK Jungle, Onett's ground level as opposed to the rooftops, the various sections of the Great Fox, the central column in Peach's Castle (etc.) are all deliberately placed there to impose a certain flow to the battle. You can retire in a section of the stage that has more walls when you're about to die, and viceversa bring your opponents in the sections that leave you more open when you're trying to score a KO. Stage hazards were something to keep in mind, but they rarely dictated the flow of the Battle, they were more something to pay extra attention to.

Brawl shifted its philosophy to very basic stage layouts where stage hazards are way more intrusive, and from there it's been downhill.
Now Brawl itself has generally good level design though, and quite a few bangers: Wario Ware, Aero Dive, Castle Siege, Halberd, Delfino Plaza, Pirate Ship...
In Smash 4 they dropped the ball. Stage bosses are just the opposite of fun, some stages barely feel designed at all (Coliseum and Wii Fit Studio are basically a reskin of each other), and what's up with the big stretches of very tiny platforms placed in absolutely random positions in Gaur Plain and Palutena's Temple? Pac-Land is a mess, the hazards in Kalos League are waaay too obtrusive...
Those stages are not used by competitive players, but in my experience they also scare away casual ones because often you die without even understanding what killed you.
Though Magicant, Midgar and Boxing Ring are really good.

Ultimate's stages are kinda there, you don't have the strategy of Melee nor the chaos of Brawl... But they're still Better than Smash 4's.
I like in particular Dracula's Castle which is basically a Melee stage, and KOF Stadium and Spiral Mountain for their simple, natural gimmicks (+ nostalgia in the latter's case).
And yeah, Northern Cave. Plays fine and is a spectacle.

To put it short... Yes, Melee is where Smash stage design in general peaked imo.

 

[Gengar84]

I think I’m alone in this but I feel like the two most likely options are either an Ultimate 2/Deluxe or a radical shift to something like Nintendo vs X. I’m just having a hard time seeing a lot of people getting excited for a similar game with half the characters. I mean Pokémon still sells well after the dex cut but the general fan sentiment has been pretty negative since then. To Sakurai’s credit, he was honest with us beforehand that he may not be able to repeat what Ultimate did again so there shouldn’t be as much backlash as with Pokemon where they just sprung that information on us during a random demo of Sword/Shield.

 

[Louie G.]

Here's a (potentially controversial) question that has been at the front of my mind recently: How many characters would another Smash game need to have to find reasonable critical or commercial success?

As long as it has a sufficiently bulky amount content in other areas or sees drastic moveset or gameplay reworks, Smash will sell even with a drastically minimized roster. Smash is not the first and will not be the last fighting game to be in this situation, after all. To varying results at the time, but many of them are still here.

In my mind, a Smash that is not reinventing the wheel and reuses models, gameplay engine etc from a previous game has no reason to dip below 50-60. And I think the community would react poorly to anything less, although that wouldn't necessarily dictate critical / commercial success. At the end of the day it would probably be a good game, and it would probably sell at least a few million on brand recognition and the inclusion of popular Nintendo characters all the same. I mean, I know I would be buying it anyway lol.

But the important takeaway is that any major cutdown on content is most justified if there is a substantial amount of additional content and gameplay modes developed in its wake. A new Smash with 40 characters and a full fledged story mode with cutscenes and whatnot might appeal to people. A new Smash with 40 characters and all the same stuff from Ultimate, what's the point of that? You can presumably still play Ultimate on the new console. So I do think they do need to provide some sort of fresh new opportunity that Ultimate doesn't have.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

I think Melee's stage design still feels so great because it encourages you to use level geometry strategically in a way that later entries haven't replicated often. Temple's cave, the solitary rock in DK Jungle, Onett's ground level as opposed to the rooftops, the various sections of the Great Fox, the central column in Peach's Castle (etc.) are all deliberately placed there to impose a certain flow to the battle. You can retire in a section of the stage that has more walls when you're about to die, and viceversa bring your opponents in the sections that leave you more open when you're trying to score a KO. Stage hazards were something to keep in mind, but they rarely dictated the flow of the Battle, they were more something to pay extra attention to.

Brawl shifted its philosophy to very basic stage layouts where stage hazards are way more intrusive, and from there it's been downhill.
Now Brawl itself has generally good level design though, and quite a few bangers: Wario Ware, Aero Dive, Castle Siege, Halberd, Delfino Plaza, Pirate Ship...
In Smash 4 they dropped the ball. Stage bosses are just the opposite of fun, some stages barely feel designed at all (Coliseum and Wii Fit Studio are basically a reskin of each other), and what's up with the big stretches of very tiny platforms placed in absolutely random positions in Gaur Plain and Palutena's Temple? Pac-Land is a mess, the hazards in Kalos League are waaay too obtrusive...
Those stages are not used by competitive players, but in my experience they also scare away casual ones because often you die without even understanding what killed you.
Though Magicant, Midgar and Boxing Ring are really good.

Ultimate's stages are kinda there, you don't have the strategy of Melee nor the chaos of Brawl... But they're still Better than Smash 4's.
I like in particular Dracula's Castle which is basically a Melee stage, and KOF Stadium and Spiral Mountain for their simple, natural gimmicks (+ nostalgia in the latter's case).
And yeah, Northern Cave. Plays fine and is a spectacle.

To put it short... Yes, Melee is where Smash stage design in general peaked imo.

8 player Smash was a huge influence on Wii U's stage design. It's why so many of their stages seem randomly made.

Compare it to the 3DS stages which are very well designed.

 

[Diddy Kong]

80s
90s
2000s
2010s

Pick a character from each of these decades for the next Smash.

Impa
Dixie Kong
Isaac
lol what

 

[DarthEnderX]

Here's a (potentially controversial) question that has been at the front of my mind recently: How many characters would another Smash game need to have to find reasonable critical or commercial success?

100.

 

[RileyXY1]

8 player Smash was a huge influence on Wii U's stage design. It's why so many of their stages seem randomly made.

Compare it to the 3DS stages which are very well designed.

Yeah. It's also why Classic Mode was the way it was as well, and why every character has exactly eight alts (aside from Little Mac in Smash 4). They really wanted to push 8 Player Smash as a primary selling point for the Wii U version,

 

[Gengar84]

The honest answer for myself is it also depends on who those characters are if it’s going to be a smaller roster. I’d gladly take a roster of just my top 30 favorite video game characters but that clearly isn’t happening. That hypothetical game wouldn’t even be Smash anymore. My main concern with a smaller roster is that I lose all my favorites and any real hope of seeing others. With a 50 character roster, smaller characters like Fulgore have even less a chance than they do now and there would only really be room for the very biggest name mainstream characters. Smash has a lot of must-haves already and once you include all those, there’s barely any room left for newcomers.

 

[Scrimblo Bimblo]

I can't imagine any reality where the next game has 40 characters and is well received.
If 10 of those are newcomers (and they'd better be), it means that 2/3rds of the characters in Ultimate disappears.
Good luck selling that as a sequel as opposed to a downgrade.

Come to think of it, a Smash game with 40 characters and a huge story mode already exists...

 

[Noipoi]

I can't imagine any reality where the next game has 40 characters and is well received.
If 10 of those are newcomers (and they'd better be), it means that 2/3rds of the characters in Ultimate disappears.
Good luck selling that as a sequel as opposed to a downgrade.

Come to think of it, a Smash game with 40 characters and a huge story mode already exists...

They just port Brawl to the Switch 2 with mildly better graphics and better online

 

[Gorgonzales]

I can't imagine any reality where the next game has 40 characters and is well received.
If 10 of those are newcomers (and they'd better be), it means that 2/3rds of the characters in Ultimate disappears.
Good luck selling that as a sequel as opposed to a downgrade.

Come to think of it, a Smash game with 40 characters and a huge story mode already exists...

quality over quantity. veterans haven't been updated in forever, so I'd like to see them be brought up to par with newcomers.

they can't go beyond Ultimate, character-wise. I don't want them to go beyond Ultimate anyway, because it's apparent how existing characters are neglected in favor of newcomers, when a lot of Nintendo's most enticing characters are already on the roster but don't feel like themselves. If there was ever a time to "hit the reset button", it's now. People who enjoy the old movesets can stick with Ultimate since that has all the characters; I think that revamping a lot of veterans is the correct course of action, then continue building up from there. add new mechanics on top like meters/assists/aerial smashes/etc (basically changes to the core gameplay formula that can evolve the platform fighting in a bold new direction), and I'll be set.

The next game is going to have cuts. There's no way around it. And if we're gonna have cuts, I don't want to go baby steps where there's around 60 characters and most of the veterans are still untouched; no no, I would personally go full-on scorched earth and get my hands bloody. nuke everything, start from ground zero. A wise man once said, "if the importance of Yoshi isn't being called into question ya haven't gone far enough".

the next game cannot be essentially "Ultimate with less content". it has to be something new to entice people, because Ultimate can't be topped character-wise. I am totally and completely fine with Smash in its current state ending at Ultimate, since sooner or later something's gonna have to change, and Ultimate is the perfect swan song for this "classic" era of the series.

 

[Louie G.]

I can't imagine any reality where the next game has 40 characters and is well received.
If 10 of those are newcomers (and they'd better be), it means that 2/3rds of the characters in Ultimate disappears.
Good luck selling that as a sequel as opposed to a downgrade.

Come to think of it, a Smash game with 40 characters and a huge story mode already exists...

I'm not actually advocating for that to happen, I'm just using it as an example of what a new game could do that Ultimate lacks to justify its existence on the same console where Ultimate is still readily playable. Subspace's story is often criticized so perhaps more could be done in respect to legibility and making the worlds feel like part of Nintendo's universe.

Like I said, I wouldn't see the roster realistically going under anything around 60 but a real fleshed out crossover story with Nintendo characters would probably sway a lot of people enough to at least check it out for themselves. In the context of financial and critical success, they would have nothing to worry about. It's really just about offering a new experience at this point.

 

[Scrimblo Bimblo]

8 player Smash was a huge influence on Wii U's stage design. It's why so many of their stages seem randomly made.

Compare it to the 3DS stages which are very well designed.

That's true; I only had Smash Wii U so the 3DS stages rarely come to my mind when I think about my Smash 4 experience, but when I finally played them in Ultimate I realized that they're very well made.
Smash Wii U was half a game and it really showed sometimes...

 

[Noipoi]

I’m not sure an apocalyptic reboot is inbound. I feel like it’ll just be a handful of characters who don’t make the cut.

The next game’s base roster will definitely still be around 60, maybe even 70.

 

[Shinuto]

You know, thinking about it, after Hades got a Spirit.....be afraid.

Spoiler

Be very afraid. :V

And watch it be an Enhancable Spirit that becomes a solo Monika...

Oh helvyeah I want ddlc in smash

 

[Louie G.]

I’m not sure an apocalyptic reboot is inbound. I feel like it’ll just be a handful of characters who don’t make the cut.

The next game’s base roster will definitely still be around 60, maybe even 70.

Yes, realistically Smash is not going to suddenly abandon its core formula on the heels of the most successful game in the series. If anything, I think Nintendo feels more incentivized than ever for Smash to stick to its guns and not alienate any of the millions of new players that Ultimate brought on board. To most players, Smash has not fatigued yet where some drastic switchup is deemed necessary. I personally wouldn't mind if we saw some more drastic changes, but it just doesn't make any sense for the series to play out this way right now. Especially with Namco back on board, and presumably the sequel to the Switch being even less of a significant hardware change than we've seen prior... porting over content will probably be pretty easy.

We just need to do some spring cleaning in order to free up dev time for new characters and game modes, just like the sequels for its contemporaries. I understand that Ultimate is a hard thing to follow up, but I think people en masse are acting a little bit unreasonable about it. Smash Bros has unique conditions involving its roster and the sheer amount of fan favorites and icons present, but Smash also spoils us. A sequel to Ultimate is simply holding Smash to the standards of any other fighting game, something that we're not used to doing, so people are assuming we have to totally reinvent the wheel.

 

[Noipoi]

Alright

Piranha Plant

A DLC bonus

Perhaps the closest Smash Bros equivalent of a joke fighter

Is it coming back?

 

[Scrimblo Bimblo]

I'm not actually advocating for that to happen, I'm just using it as an example of what a new game could do that Ultimate lacks to justify its existence on the same console where Ultimate is still readily playable. Subspace's story is often criticized so perhaps more could be done in respect to legibility and making the worlds feel like part of Nintendo's universe.

Like I said, I wouldn't see the roster realistically going under anything around 60 but a real fleshed out crossover story with Nintendo characters would probably sway a lot of people enough to at least check it out for themselves. In the context of financial and critical success, they would have nothing to worry about. It's really just about offering a new experience at this point.

I feel like at that point they should just make a different game. Subspace was cool and all, but in Smash 90% of the time you're playing multiplayer.

Like I dunno, if the point is just having a crossover story make a Fire Emblem-like where every unit is a Nintendo character or something.

 

[Louie G.]

Piranha Plant

Is it coming back?

I like Piranha Plant a lot, admittedly I enjoy playing them more than most of the other Mario characters. But begrudgingly, they are the definition of an inessential character. They bring a lot to the table in terms of wackiness and creativity, and I love that about them, but it's coming from a large series with a multitude of characters who are absent, and characters who are already here and would probably need to return first. Surely Dr. Mario is less significant than Piranha Plant, but I don't have much faith in it beating out Bowser Jr or Rosalina. And we have to assume the most fruitful series on the roster like Mario, Pokemon and Fire Emblem are proooobably where eyes are darting first when considering who's on the chopping block.

That being said, I found it funny that post-Ultimate we're seeing them have such prominence. Mario Wonder LOVED Piranha Plants, I'd say they're probably the most prominent enemies in the whole game. With those cloudy piranhas circling Bowser's castle and of course being the focal point of one of its most popular levels. I'm not sure if there's any correlation there at all, or if it's confirmation bias, but it was definitely something I noticed. So it's not impossible, but I do think Plant is one of the least safe characters on the roster as it stands.