sigh...
yes you CAN do that but two things.
1. running to clones both of which became worse as characters with these mechanics doesn't really back your argument very strongly.
Worse in tiers or design? In terms of design, that's debatable on both accounts. Doc is better than Mario in Melee, so I don't see why tier placement would matter.
And I used clones because it's easy. I could use, for example, Ike, since he didn't introduce any mechanic that wasn't in Melee.
roy's mechanic is one of my least favorite things in smash as a series.
Lovely, but later on you lecture me about basing things in my opinion despite that fact that I never made a plea to preference, just saying gimmicks aren't
needed.
different for the sake of different and a mechanic that contradicts his weapon, design,
I'm not convinced, but I don't really care because it's a specific case that says nothing about the broader practice.
and its not the same as the mechanics i listed becuase as far as i know that mechanic is soley for smash and has no basis in his source game.
A lot of these sorts of differences are they to communicate personality and style rather than take part of the source game and bring it into Smash, though Megaman's handling is a good example of a game being recreated.
i'm not an expert on melee metagame or the lasers but the only difference is firing speed and hitstun right?
Basically just int values and the presence/absence of hitstun, as far as I'm aware, so close enough.
the most important differences between fox and falco in melee is shine angles and dair. If lasers are what separates the two characters. I'd much rather have character differences like marth to corrin than falco to fox any day of the week.
Again, you're overblowing an example. Of course Falco's towers are a significant difference, but lasers are easier to give a more complete account of.
2. you are arguing for characters to have less mechanical difference and you are using personal bias as a support.
No... I'm not ... that's literally what you were doing at the start of this, but I never made any such citation.
And my case, if you're actually interested, isn't for characters to be less diverse, it's specifically for the validity of them pulling from the same body of rules rather than giving each their own set being necessary. Simon doesn't need to collect heart mana from his opponents to stand out and be well-designed, and there's something to be said for the coherence of characters that all have commensurable properties even if they still play completely differently.
I never said they have to put differences to make new characters but i do expect they will becuase the characters they do it for come accross more accurate to their source games. They do not HAVE to add new mechanics to create new chaarcters but the will and should. (inklings will have a new mechnic for sure)
And this is just false. You said:
f you truly want more variety between characters you sjould want unique traits for them. Characters dont just magically play different they need new mechanics.
Moving on...
next for bayonetta you are just plain wrong. for bayo to be faithful in her interpretation she needed to be a combo character.
You're just continuously making things up. All I said was that I didn't think the gun thing really counts as a gimmick, what you talk about here has nothing to do with that.
she needed to be herself. it would be like ryu unable to combo. Bayo needs her wepons, flexability, and general atitude. bayo does not have a bunch of her mechanics that are required to be truly good at a bayonetta game but she is a more than adequate base.
I don't actually disagree with the mechanics they gave Bayo, but I'm sure you can agree that that's beside the point of the "weapons, flexibility and general atitude [sic]".
you are confusing what you want with how devs have done smash.
You are confusing what I said with the strawman you evidently built in your head after reading like three words from my original post.
there will be some basic new characters but many players myself included welcomed new mechanic featuring resource management, puppeteers, button inputs, multiple normals on one attack, ranged normals, item storage, self healing, and a fear factor. gave more variety and new gameplay experiences and situations. i dont want devs to shy from it. Design space for new characters becomes even wider when you are willing to let in new mechanics becuase otherwise you will start making variations of characters that already eaxist (*semiclones). some of the new mechanics work (limit, inputs) and some dont (gliding and stamina) but they should attempt them becuase its about the characters and smash isnt just competitive proably not even 20 percent. People on smashboards are not even 5 percent of the customer base they are going to reach. we cannot allow our bubble to be the only thing we see.
I don't actually have anything against new mechanics. I don't really enjoy Smash 4, but literally the only character I play in it is Ryu. My case wasn't that new things are evil, but there are a lot of devs and armchair devs who can't conceive of how to make a new character without adding subsystems that only apply to that character, which is legitimate in some cases but definitely not all, and over saturating the game with them makes it a mess. Has Smash 4 done this? I don't know, probably not. Will Smash 5? Maybe, but I doubt it. The only point of my post was to argue against your assertion that new gimmicks *need* to be implemented to distinguish a character. Then you denied making that claim and accused me of saying things that I didn't, which works especially poorly in a text-based medium.