I see what you're getting at, but it's not like you can always just give it a new coat of paint and call it a day, but this is about the Mario games here, and to a lesser extent, Zelda. By the way, I still haven't gotten around to playing NSMBWii yet, but I intend to, and that's a promise. We can discuss that more all you want when I get the chance.
So in terms of Smash, it's a little vague for me, but would you mind providing some context examples? I just want to make sure we're on the same page here.
It's a pretty engrossing concept, but I'll give it a shot.
The context is basically "how you play the game." That means which characters you and your opponents choose, how many players are there, how teams are arranged (if any), what the goal is (time/stock/etc.), what items can appear, how you interact with the stage, and some other stuff I don't feel like listing. But none of that matters if those things aren't being used.
To "focus on context" is essentially to "turn fat into muscle." That means less unused or unappreciated stuff and more ways to enjoy the overall game (which means not just the regular mulitplayer mode). Now that doesn't necessarily mean getting rid of stuff, though it does mean adjustments in some form. Take classic mode for example: most of this is pretty boring since it's just you vs. computer in a linear fashion. How would you make it more interesting? Throw in some co-op and make your opponents and objectives completely random.
Of course that means other aspects of the game need some mixing up too:
What if there were Pokeballs or ATs that pulled out bosses, and everyone had to team up for a minute to kill them or else you get "Mike Tyson wins!" on the results screen?
What if there was a stage based off of Super Mario Galaxy, where you can only KO by knocking someone directly away from the stage instead of at an angle?
What if there was a 4-player event where you had to do the entire Tourian sequence, complete with killing all the Metroids and Mother Brain?
What if you could have a 4v4 match on one of those huge stages? Imagine how intense that'd get, it'd feel more like a war rather than a duel.
And so on. The point being that rather than focusing on improving an already amazing hammer, focus on where the nail is. Or what you're nailing. Whatever. There's way more unexplored potential there.
I'm not sure if I explained that right, so lemme know if you want me to take another stab at it.
Anyway, yes, adding stuff isn't the only way to innovate gameplay. However, I think "innovate" and other related words are used to much around here to the point that they've lost meaning. I'd prefer to say something like "a breath of fresh air" or "something creative" or "enhance" in certain contexts.
I was thinking more about the article and taking mechanics or other properties like lives is just one way to have Subtractive Design. There's also taking away unnecessary difficulty. I was happy to see that Brawl added the ability for you to grab the stage while your back was facing it, and to auto grab the stage with a tether attack. That made my life easier when I played the game because I could focus more on the fight and less about recovery precision.
As long as we're both know what we're talking about, the words themselves don't matter too much.
Sorta off topic, but there was one thing I absolutely hate about Brawl's physics: the loss of running momentum when you become airborne. I can only think of one other game off the top of my head that shared that property (and that was only 1/4 of the time). Even real life doesn't work that way.
