I'm getting a rough hang of slime cancels - I've mostly been using heavies like Reptar and Plankton since their moves end more slow and serve as better training wheels for the mechanics.
I don't need to rationalize or justify my enjoyment for a video game.
If you can't even explain why you enjoy it more than it only proves my point further that you had already made up your mind about preferring the first one over your insistence on "hype bad, niche good" mentality you've had about everything.
It's like you have some sort of need to ensure that stuff you think is underappreciated is appreciated, so you give way more credit to it to justify it.
The first game was fun. It was a good base to start from. But it's more than okay to admit you were wrong about the sequel than be stubbornly insistent that the first game is some masterpiece when it clearly had an abundance of fundamental flaws. I'm a defender of the first game - but I understand that it had flaws that needed to be addressed and never were. And I'm not so deluded into thinking it's better than Ultimate - or hell, any official Smash game, or even Rivals of Aether.
You're entitled to your opinion. But I also can clearly see that you're too stubborn to look at things through an objective lens. This game is an improvement on the first in basically every conceivable way except in subjective fields like roster selection, UI and music.
It'd be more fitting to say the first game has charm in it's unpolishedness than to say it's better. You needs to learn to look through things with an objective lens not whatever tinted glasses you has on.
It's okay to admit you were wrong about something. Maybe I'm being too hard on you, - and if so, I apologize - but I'm frankly sick of this kind of insistence in defending inanimate flawed objects or acting like your opinion is so much better than anyone else's because it's not mainstream, it's different ergo it must be good.
with all respect , i definitely think both games are different enough to the point that preferring one over the other is more than justified. its distinctive and has an entirely different approach to gameplay , however you feel its executed
i don’t need to whiteknight wario x3 , and if im misrepresenting him he can say as much , but he’s been plenty optimistic abt this game so far - and his philosophies when it comes to game design are pretty cohesive if not consistent. i at least sympathize a fair bit of what he says. i can’t reconcile it as contrarianism at all
it just feels rlly dismissive of points that are at least acknowledging the game as it stands? i don’t understand why it’s being interpreted as a slight against the common voice , that much has been pretty common throughout this thread
They're not THAT different that you can ignore the objective flaws of the first game. Yes, it has some cool mechanics - I'd love to have the strafing back specifically - but the game is still buggy as all hell and jank in all the worst ways. The movesets are uncreative and the aerial attacks have basically no difference from their grounded variants. The moveset design is infinitely more careful and loved in the sequel, as opposed to the first game where it was slapdash'd together.
