Veteran Revamps

[SmashBro99]

Cant say Ganondorf hm.

Switching between Deku, Goron, Zora masks I guess similar to Pokemon Trainer, 3 movesets in one. But it would make sense that he could fight in his default form as well, maybe weaker than Toon Link and limited since he would have 3 other options. Fierce Deity as the FS

He has plenty of options, and they gave him none. Running fast and rolling around is Sonic sure, but he has plenty of abilities that are not explored in smash.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Ugh, why is it people want to change movesets to change because "canon"? Doesn't anyone realize it's just unfair to the vast majority of people who have dedicated themselves to learning the ins and outs of a character and want to stick with them throughout a series?

The only real change I want is to give Samus projectile normals, but only because ZSS is the melee Samus therefore Varia Samus should be projectile Samus.

Other than that, this topic is ridiculous. It ignores any thought towards design or keeping a niche for the sake of "canon". Please, no more.

I agree completely.

Visual diversity doesn’t mean it will force an interesting play style into a characters move set. It’s just change for the sake of it.

This was already done in Project M, with characters receiving original variations on their moves, but the transition was rapid and inorganic, and therefor players who succeeded with them are only those who dedicated a greater deal of time to them than normal.

The way I see it is that characters exist in smash and don’t exist in any others. The way their moves worked in their respective games worked the same, however, only in a way that makes sense in the smash bros universe.

This obsession with making characters feel like their original counterparts ignores what’s important; and that’s if a character actually feels good to play with. Mega man is a huge culprit of this, as he is very true to his character, but playing with him feels like hot garbage. I don’t have a normal forward tilt or original nair, and it’s also my jab. 3 moves gone for the sake of maintaining integrity of the source material, and that’s trash.

The smash universe has so many original characters, I don’t know why developers are so focused on the source material. I mean look at Greninja and Captain Falcon, characters that are incredibly divergent from source material, but they are loved and fun to play with.

I personally would like to see how characters can improve as fighters, rather than pay home to their games. This is why I play with characters like Marth, Roy, Fox, Falco, Captain Falcon, Greninja, Sheik, etc., because they feel good to control, and whether or not they are doing stuff they did in their original games makes no difference. Zelda didn’t have Naryu’s Love, Din’s Fire, or Farrow’s Wind—Link did! But we still liked it!

Personally, I want some dope looking moves from characters, or moves with variation.

Let’s take Captain Falcon’s raptor boost.

If you do it normally, you get his default uppercut.

If you smash side b, if he lands it, he gets a two hit flaming windmill kick that sends him and his opponent skyward, and can act out of it when it’s over (thinking something similar to beowolf in Devil May Cry 3). This would be optimal for starting combos, especially if you are below a platform, but you can still get punished if shielded.

The third variation would be is you did a side b, but held the button down. You would go into a feint movement, similar to how Dudley and Balrog have feint attack’s on their punches in Street Fighter.

There’s so much that can be done to characters to make them feel fun, not a novelty parlortrate that is cool for a second, but makes them useless or feel weird. Smash characters are a sum of their parts, not just the newest game that came out.

 

[Necro'lic]

Visual diversity doesn’t mean it will force an interesting play style into a characters move set.

Personally, I want some dope looking moves from characters, or moves with variation.

Why not both?

Plus, your idea of a multistage Raptor Boost is pretty visually diverse...

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Why not both?

Plus, your idea of a multistage Raptor Boost is pretty visually diverse...

I’m not opposed to both, but it’s easier said than done, like most things. I feel as though some people want these changes because they “make sense” rather than think about how that could change a characters game play.

A common one would be how people want Revali’s Gale as Link’s up B instead of his spin attack. If you were to make that change, Link would not only lose a significant portion of his punish game on the ground for covering rolls, opponents who try to bait him, etc., he would also only have a recovery move that forces him to surrender in neutral, similar to Sonic.

On top of that, it’s removing an iconic attack that has been in every single Zelda game (except for the first and second) after A Link to the Past, just to appeal to players who played one game.

Rehauling a character requires you to pace things slowly and make the transition feel organic. Transitioning from Brawl to Smash 4 with Pit was a interesting because he had changes on the properties of his Fair, Bair, and all of his Specials, but mechanically didn’t stray to far from their functioning, as his side special still functioned as a propelling attack, orbitars were still shields, Up B still gave Pit a great amount of distance, and Neutral B was changed, but so that it was overall better when charged up. The change was also necessary because Pit just barely became his own character since the release of his game. Link is going through a transition period himself, though it not extreme, it is digestible enough for veteran players.

I can talk about this forever, but sadly cannot at this very movement. But I would like to hear more from others regardless.

 

[Necro'lic]

I’m not opposed to both, but it’s easier said than done, like most things. I feel as though some people want these changes because they “make sense” rather than think about how that could change a characters game play.

A common one would be how people want Revali’s Gale as Link’s up B instead of his spin attack. If you were to make that change, Link would not only lose a significant portion of his punish game on the ground for covering rolls, opponents who try to bait him, etc., he would also only have a recovery move that forces him to surrender in neutral, similar to Sonic.

On top of that, it’s removing an iconic attack that has been in every single Zelda game (except for the first and second) after A Link to the Past, just to appeal to players who played one game.

Rehauling a character requires you to pace things slowly and make the transition feel organic. Transitioning from Brawl to Smash 4 with Pit was a interesting because he had changes on the properties of his Fair, Bair, and all of his Specials, but mechanically didn’t stray to far from their functioning, as his side special still functioned as a propelling attack, orbitars were still shields, Up B still gave Pit a great amount of distance, and Neutral B was changed, but so that it was overall better when charged up. The change was also necessary because Pit just barely became his own character since the release of his game. Link is going through a transition period himself, though it not extreme, it is digestible enough for veteran players.

I can talk about this forever, but sadly cannot at this very movement. But I would like to hear more from others regardless.

Okay, I think your point is less about just putting in references to games and more about removing already iconic moves that are already references for OTHER references to newer or less iconic games. At least with your Link example (which I agree with, btw).

Let me ask you though. Would you be opposed to someone like Wario having more Wario Land references IF they were replacing moves that don't reference WarioWare? Would you be opposed to Bowser Jr. having his paintbrush on some less interesting attacks from his Klown Kart like his tilts? After all, both of those characters don't have many references to those very iconic original appearances, since Wario started in Wario Land and Bowser Jr. debuted in Super Mario Sunshine.

Would you be opposed to Young Link or Toon Link having more specific tools from their games IF they didn't take away other iconic moves like the Spin Attack? I know this seems really wishy washy, but I really want to know where your limits are. Obviously not immediately, but whenever you want to talk about it.

This is mostly for clones/semi-clones, but even if these changes changed their overall playstyles by a bit, what exactly is wrong with that when it might make them more solidly different from their counterparts while in turn giving them more reference to their games? Like turning Young Link into less of a projectile character and more of a rushdown one? Or giving Falco new special moves referencing more recent games or Assault without really changing his overall playstyle? I think an attempt is better than simply twiddling our thumbs and dismiss attempts altogether.

 

[War Anvil]

Sonic's the guest character that deserves it most.

Think about it: Homing Attack would either replace the Spin Dash, and be reworked to the Light Attack from Sonic Adventure. Drop Dash would serve as the new , Spin Charge could take up Spin Dash's old shield-cancel properties but gradually slow down the more hits it lands without jumping, and...Spring Jump would just remain the same. Once you go for Spin Charge or Drop Dash, you'd be able to mash for Sonic's somersault kick, which is a somewhat laggy but high-power option that can't be blocked (Attributed to the somersault getting past enemy defenses or tight spaces).

Some of Sonic's moves will deserve a change, too. Think Project M, for example.

 

[Ryu Myuutsu]

Dark Samus is enfused with phazon material, moves differently, and is supposed to be stronger. Plus, if you actually watched her battles against Samus, you would see that she has a ton of unique material to go off of. If people want to play like Samus, well nothing is happening to her.

To which I addressed already when I said:

Dark Samus already levitates above ground during her walking, dash and rolling animations, so they managed to capture that feel from her games. What else do you want to them to change in her movement?

And in regards to her moves, I know she has her own but she also heavily mimics Samus's since she was created from her genetic material and power suit. In Prime 2, she shoots missiles and power missiles, uses morph ball, uses boost ball, her spread shot is a variation of Samus's Power Beam. Her being the way she is now in Ultimate makes sense with her canon.

Dark Samus's movements were perfectly conveyed in Smash already, and because she is born out of Samus's DNA and her suit, nothing stops her from mimicking her. She does this during her fights in spite of possessing some unique moves of her own.

Dark Pit was debuted in a game where there was a huge amount of weaponry to choose from, and the silver bow isn't even his main weapon of choice. It's the staff he uses in his Final Smash. If people want to play a dual sword style of fighting, Pit is still an option.

And I said:

He has a weapon named after him, but he actually comes at you with several of them and in most of the chapters he prefers to use the Silver Bow. That aside, Dark Pit is a literal mirror image of Pit; anything he does Pit can do as well. Perhaps if he was a character with a higher priority they could diverse him more, but being a clone it's the most accurate representation you can do for him.

As for his equipment of choice, Silver Bow actually becomes his signature weapon.

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

Exhibit C:

Total number of times Pittoo uses his Silver Bow more than any other weapon in the game: 3
Total number of times he uses the Dark Pit Staff: 1

You care about canon, right? You may not like it, but for most of the clones in the game, being one is as canon as it gets. And sometimes, their canon doesn't provide them enough to build with which is why you work around it. This is true for a lot of the RPG characters and for the vehicle based genres like Star Fox and F Zero.

And the fact that Ganondorf has stayed a partial clone for so many years now is an insult at best to Ganondorf players everywhere. He plays nothing like the games he is based on which is what Smash Bros is about. If Sakurai made Snake a clone fighter or even a partial clone of someone like Mario back in Smash Brawl, people would still be pissed off to this day.

That's being overdramatic. Ganon is an outlier among the clones as his source material is the only one that didn't warrant him such a status. On the other hand, the decision behind his implementation makes sense because of his body type with Captain Falcon, and technically, Falcon's moveset was made up from the ground so who is to say it didn't fit Ganondorf? After all, some moves were shared among the cast because of this: Kirby, Fox and Jigglypuff used to share certain moves, and the same is true for Samus and Captain Falcon.

I can't speak for Star Fox, Fire Emblem, or Earthbound but I can guarantee there's a unique move set to go off of somewhere in the games that they're in. There can't be nothing to go off of for Roy, Lucina, and Chrom.

If you can "guarantee" that, then I can guarantee you that you don't know much about it.
Star Fox games don't have a lot of moveset potential because the cast stays in a vehicle during MOST of the game. This is why they had to make up Fox's moves and base them off japanese folklore, and by extension, derive Falco's and Wolf's from him. Right now those two are in a good place, because they've diverged enough to reflect their personality and play differently. So what unique moveset can you guarantee me that those two can have that also happens to be canon with their source material? Was there a moment I missed from their games where Falco gets out of his Arwing and busts some sweet combat moves? Because if so, I would very much like to see that.

And don't get me started on Earthbound. Combat animations in those games are pretty much non existent. This is how combat looks in those games:

You never see them move, so it's hard to get a grasp on what Lucas is doing to attack. Add to the fact that most of Lucas's repertoire of PSI are mainly assist moves which don't tend to translate very well in a fighting game. One his offensive PSI, PK Love, is actually represented in Smash on his normal attacks and during one of his victory screens. Him and Ness borrowing offensive moves from their party is actually a pretty neat way to represent the series.
To a lesser extent, the same can apply to Fire Emblem. Roy has it worse because in his games he has two or three attack animations at most, not enough to build an entire moveset. Chrom and Lucina are less impacted by this because their game has less graphical limitations, but Lucina being a Marth clone is a mythology gag from Awakening.
This fanbase tends to think that they just randomly make someone a clone without rhyme or reason, when this is not true, and it's supported by their own canon, or by the insufficiency of a canon to go of.

 

[Quillion]

I just learned now that Luigi is getting a Poltergust grab.

I'm not sure how to feel about this. On one hand, it makes him more canon. But on the other, they're probably going to make the grab crap because it's ranged.

This could really screw up his grab game, and is another way thar making canon moves isn't inherently a good thing.

 

[Necro'lic]

I just learned now that Luigi is getting a Poltergust grab.

I'm not sure how to feel about this. On one hand, it makes him more canon. But on the other, they're probably going to make the grab crap because it's ranged.

This could really screw up his grab game, and is another way thar making canon moves isn't inherently a good thing.

Or, you know, you only think that way because ranged grabs in the past have been crap. Honestly this neither supports nor denounces this argument, because it all depends on how good the new move is.

I don't think it'll be good, or think they'll buff his grabs accordingly if the grab itself is bad to compensate, but is that really the fault of the change to the move, or the balance of the move itself being bad? Like, you could literally make Luigi's new grab the most imbalanced thing on the planet just by tweaking the numbers involved. What does that say about the inclusion of this reference?

Not much.

 

[Quillion]

Or, you know, you only think that way because ranged grabs in the past have been crap. Honestly this neither supports nor denounces this argument, because it all depends on how good the new move is.

I don't think it'll be good, or think they'll buff his grabs accordingly if the grab itself is bad to compensate, but is that really the fault of the change to the move, or the balance of the move itself being bad? Like, you could literally make Luigi's new grab the most imbalanced thing on the planet just by tweaking the numbers involved. What does that say about the inclusion of this reference?

Not much.

But how do you balance a long grab? Long grabs with good frame data are considered overpowering (see: Melee Marth, Brawl Dedede). Long grabs with not-as-good frame data are considered trash (see: everyone else who has ever had a ranged grab). The biggest use I've ever seen for ranged grabs were as convenient combo tools in Smash 4, a blessing due to 4's egregious combo linearity.

If anything, making Poltergust his Down-B and more like Dedede's inhale could have worked better, and even that move isn't considered too good.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

I just learned now that Luigi is getting a Poltergust grab.

I'm not sure how to feel about this. On one hand, it makes him more canon. But on the other, they're probably going to make the grab crap because it's ranged.

This could really screw up his grab game, and is another way thar making canon moves isn't inherently a good thing.

Yeah I’m not feeling the change. Link looses his tether and Luigi gets one.

But from what I read, it said he uses polturgeist for his “Throw”. A throw being an input after a grab, he could just have some throws with it, however, it was worded in a way that the use of poltergeist is all encompassing; that all of his grab / throw game revolves around it.

If the ladder is true then Luigi got nerfed. Hard.

 

[Polar Bair]

I didn't realize there were people who only used Smashboards. It's just his throws, Luigi isn't going to suck.

 

[Necro'lic]

But how do you balance a long grab? Long grabs with good frame data are considered overpowering (see: Melee Marth, Brawl Dedede). Long grabs with not-as-good frame data are considered trash (see: everyone else who has ever had a ranged grab). The biggest use I've ever seen for ranged grabs were as convenient combo tools in Smash 4, a blessing due to 4's egregious combo linearity.

If anything, making Poltergust his Down-B and more like Dedede's inhale could have worked better, and even that move isn't considered too good.

If I had it my way, tether grabs would be slightly faster and longer lasting. They also would be so long lasting as to be immune to sidestep dodging and MIGHT also be able to outprioritize most attacks. They could also be longer range. So at that point, tether grabs are more of a commitment, but with a non-zero amount of benefits compared to melee grabs.

But the point of that rebuttal was that the simple act of changing Luigi's grab to Poltergust means nothing in regards to supporting your argument. Here's a hypothetical: what if the frame data, range, hitbox size, etc. was EXACTLY the same; Luigi has, programming wise, the exact same grab. BUT, it is now the Poltergust instead of a general hand grab. Good or bad?

I'm sure you'll say good, since the only change is aesthetic, thus gameplay doesn't change. Now imagine a less extreme example where there are some changes to a move but the overall purpose of the move is rather similar, but the move is changed with a reference to the character's games. Example: I've been thinking about giving Bowser Jr. his paintbrush for at least his tilts, but for example, the forward tilt would, besides having slightly increased range and maybe a slightly smaller hitbox, would pretty much be the exact same move in purpose and feel. Good or bad? Where's the line?

 

[Quillion]

If I had it my way, tether grabs would be slightly faster and longer lasting. They also would be so long lasting as to be immune to sidestep dodging and MIGHT also be able to outprioritize most attacks. They could also be longer range. So at that point, tether grabs are more of a commitment, but with a non-zero amount of benefits compared to melee grabs.

But the point of that rebuttal was that the simple act of changing Luigi's grab to Poltergust means nothing in regards to supporting your argument. Here's a hypothetical: what if the frame data, range, hitbox size, etc. was EXACTLY the same; Luigi has, programming wise, the exact same grab. BUT, it is now the Poltergust instead of a general hand grab. Good or bad?

I'm sure you'll say good, since the only change is aesthetic, thus gameplay doesn't change. Now imagine a less extreme example where there are some changes to a move but the overall purpose of the move is rather similar, but the move is changed with a reference to the character's games. Example: I've been thinking about giving Bowser Jr. his paintbrush for at least his tilts, but for example, the forward tilt would, besides having slightly increased range and maybe a slightly smaller hitbox, would pretty much be the exact same move in purpose and feel. Good or bad? Where's the line?

Personally, I'm just too burned by Bowser's Smash 4 changes to like the idea of making movesets more canon. It's just too alienating to do, even if the hitbox and effects are the same and the animations are different.

Nobody wants Mario to use his hammer, so why should anyone want veterans to be more canon? It's an unethical change.

 

[Necro'lic]

Personally, I'm just too burned by Bowser's Smash 4 changes to like the idea of making movesets more canon. It's just too alienating to do, even if the hitbox and effects are the same and the animations are different.

That's quite an extreme stance to make. Nothing gameplay wise is lost, yet you would still be against differing animations? At that point, it seems like this stance has devolved into "change, therefore bad".

Nobody wants Mario to use his hammer, so why should anyone want veterans to be more canon? It's an unethical change.

"Unethical"? That's pushing it quite a bit. What is unethical about giving fans more accurate representation of characters they love if it ends up being either non consequential or even completely irrelevant to their gameplay?

 

[TheTrueBrawler]

How did this thread quickly turn from "Who Would you Revamp" to "Are Revamps Good for Smash" in less than two days?

 

[Quillion]

That's quite an extreme stance to make. Nothing gameplay wise is lost, yet you would still be against differing animations? At that point, it seems like this stance has devolved into "change, therefore bad".



"Unethical"? That's pushing it quite a bit. What is unethical about giving fans more accurate representation of characters they love if it ends up being either non consequential or even completely irrelevan

Fighting games thrive on having their characters' portrayals be constant throughout the life of a series. Could you imagine if Zero returns to the MvC series and it's his MMZ self? It just wouldn't work.

Changing characters' iconic moves will make more people mad than it pleases. Canon portrayals won't change that.

 

[RouffWestie]

That Luigi post is what I needed, thank the lord. I was about to put Luigi using the Poltergust for his throws on my list of desired revamps - it's been in the back of my head for the longest time - but I stopped considering it cause I thought it would never happen. Yet here we are! I'm looking forward to it.

 

[Necro'lic]

Fighting games thrive on having their characters' portrayals be constant throughout the life of a series. Could you imagine if Zero returns to the MvC series and it's his MMZ self? It just wouldn't work.

Changing characters' iconic moves will make more people mad than it pleases. Canon portrayals won't change that.

Oh, so we also need to have a lack of good tutorials and a bunch of hidden mechanics that general players will never know about, and potential difficulty spikes as a result, and combos where you can literally do nothing but watch the opponent beat you down, because "that's how fighting games are".

But back to Smash Bros specifically, I'm guessing you're not on board with Link in Ultimate being based on Breath of the Wild, despite him only having animation changes on a vast majority of his moves while their general purpose stayed the same from the past games? And speaking of Link, which change to his Boomerang is the one that makes people mad? The change from Melee to Brawl, or from Smash 4 to Ultimate? The thing is that both are canon Boomerangs, so does it then not count?

And speaking of, what about the decloning of Falco in Brawl, or Roy in SSB4? Is the line when moves change at all, or ONLY when they reference their games? Because if it's the former, I think you have a LOT of explaining why a bunch of clones turning to semi-clones from Melee to Brawl was seen as a bad thing by the vast majority of people when I have yet to see anyone complain that having exact clones is preferable to semi-clones. If it's the latter, why are you bringing up moveset changes from other fighting games in general?

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Oh, so we also need to have a lack of good tutorials and a bunch of hidden mechanics that general players will never know about, and potential difficulty spikes as a result, and combos where you can literally do nothing but watch the opponent beat you down, because "that's how fighting games are".

But back to Smash Bros specifically, I'm guessing you're not on board with Link in Ultimate being based on Breath of the Wild, despite him only having animation changes on a vast majority of his moves while their general purpose stayed the same from the past games? And speaking of Link, which change to his Boomerang is the one that makes people mad? The change from Melee to Brawl, or from Smash 4 to Ultimate? The thing is that both are canon Boomerangs, so does it then not count?

And speaking of, what about the decloning of Falco in Brawl, or Roy in SSB4? Is the line when moves change at all, or ONLY when they reference their games? Because if it's the former, I think you have a LOT of explaining why a bunch of clones turning to semi-clones from Melee to Brawl was seen as a bad thing by the vast majority of people when I have yet to see anyone complain that having exact clones is preferable to semi-clones. If it's the latter, why are you bringing up moveset changes from other fighting games in general?

I don’t think he said any of that, and there honestly isn’t anything wrong with it. It’s the reason why people love games like Dragon Ball FighterZ and Marvel vs. Capcom. But even if you can do that doesn’t mean you will against a good player with solid neutral. You can’t blame the game for approaching incorrectly or not having a solid defense.

And I am personally fine with difficulty spikes, because it’s not going to affect people who play the game every now and then. What is exactly wrong with something being difficult? If you want to be a body builder you aren’t gonna be lifting the same weight over and over again, you aren’t going to eat a bunch of bull****, and you aren’t going to do it when you want to, but when you have to. You’re gonna work for that ****. But if you just want to get or stay in shape, just exercise moderately. What if you’re trying to knock out a set and some asshole says you can’t lift above a certain weight? You feel limited, and you aren’t making progress, and difficulty still arises arbitrarily in the form of limiting your baser instincts and strengths.

Link’s changes were not drastic, with the exception of losing a tether. But this is an example of doing it for the better of the character, and to differentiate himself from young link. If you don’t have a goal in mind then why try and break what was never broken?

Brawl Falco was cool, but in comparison to Melee, he’s trash. I mean, he was a great character, but he didn’t stray too far from Fox and had solid tools. Melee Falco, despite being a clone, was much more interesting and fun to play and watch, vs baiting options with SHDL, illusion across stage, punish, chain grab, DACUS. Cool, but i’de rather have pillar combos.

You can’t use Roy in this comparison because all of his hit boxes were ****ed up and didn’t work. He needed to be reworked, especially since it has been 13 years since he was last in smash.

 

[Necro'lic]

I don’t think he said any of that, and there honestly isn’t anything wrong with it. It’s the reason why people love games like Dragon Ball FighterZ and Marvel vs. Capcom. But even if you can do that doesn’t mean you will against a good player with solid neutral. You can’t blame the game for approaching incorrectly or not having a solid defense.

And I am personally fine with difficulty spikes, because it’s not going to affect people who play the game every now and then. What is exactly wrong with something being difficult? If you want to be a body builder you aren’t gonna be lifting the same weight over and over again, you aren’t going to eat a bunch of bull****, and you aren’t going to do it when you want to, but when you have to. You’re gonna work for that ****. But if you just want to get or stay in shape, just exercise moderately. What if you’re trying to knock out a set and some ******* says you can’t lift above a certain weight? You feel limited, and you aren’t making progress, and difficulty still arises arbitrarily in the form of limiting your baser instincts and strengths.

Link’s changes were not drastic, with the exception of losing a tether. But this is an example of doing it for the better of the character, and to differentiate himself from young link. If you don’t have a goal in mind then why try and break what was never broken?

Brawl Falco was cool, but in comparison to Melee, he’s trash. I mean, he was a great character, but he didn’t stray too far from Fox and had solid tools. Melee Falco, despite being a clone, was much more interesting and fun to play and watch, vs baiting options with SHDL, illusion across stage, punish, chain grab, DACUS. Cool, but i’de rather have pillar combos.

You can’t use Roy in this comparison because all of his hit boxes were ****ed up and didn’t work. He needed to be reworked, especially since it has been 13 years since he was last in smash.

What I'm getting from this is that it isn't just black and white. Well I know this. I was wondering why Quillion was going to an extreme degree when the situations are more nuanced than that. It's why I made these obviously more "grey" comparisons and seeing where the line is drawn. Obviously it's different for each case.

Also, we already went on a tangent now, I'm not going on another one about the difficulty spike. All I'll say is that "spike" is the more important word of the two there.

 

[Quillion]

What I'm getting from this is that it isn't just black and white. Well I know this. I was wondering why Quillion was going to an extreme degree when the situations are more nuanced than that. It's why I made these obviously more "grey" comparisons and seeing where the line is drawn. Obviously it's different for each case.

Also, we already went on a tangent now, I'm not going on another one about the difficulty spike. All I'll say is that "spike" is the more important word of the two there.

None of the changes to Falco or Roy caused them to stray away from what made them recognizable in Smash. And the changes to Link from Melee and Brawl were meager enough to not matter.

The characters that were changed for Smash 4 and Ultimate "because canon" are now less hypeworthy because Bowser is no longer a heavy, primal kaiju, Pit no longer thrives on aggravating the opponent with multihitters and a godly recovery, Link is now a righty with no hookshot and a completely different bomb, and Ganondorf is no longer use pure brute strength, now swinging around that lame sword to pander to a vocal minority.

It's just not fun to see characters that I liked playing as change so suddenly...

 

[Necro'lic]

It's just not fun to see characters that I liked playing as change so suddenly...

God dammit man, you know better than to generalize people's feelings based on your own subjective feelings.

I don't really think I need to go on anymore if we've already established that what is a "good" revamp is solely based on a case by case subjective viewpoint. We all agree on that, right?

Personally, I think Ganon's changes aren't enough in the right direction while Link's are, if only to differentiate him from the two other Links. I think Bowser's changes in Smash 4 were honestly the BEST overall, because even back in Melee as someone who also played Super Mario Galaxy and Mario Kart, it always bothered me that Bowser was more animal than in any game I ever saw him in. Pit is kinda meh on either front. I never felt a big change in his style overall.

So MY subjective feelings:

SSBU Ganondorf: Not far enough
SSBU Link: Pretty darn good
SSB4 Bowser: AMAZING
SSB4 Pit: No comment

I'm sure you'll find some people who share my views on these as well as those who disagree. The point here is that it doesn't really give a good indicator of why changing movesets is a good or bad thing. It all depends on what is done and how. Just say "I'm not fond of recent moveset changes for certain characters that happen to increase canonicity". You can't then jump the gun to "moveset changes that increase canonicity are always bad". Because, and I mean this only in the most positive way I can muster, it makes it seem like you're projecting your opinions as facts.

 

[Iko MattOrr]

There are many characters that I would revamp, such as Young Link, Sonic, Wario, and so on.
But I want to focus on Kirby.

I know that what I'm suggesting is probably not possible because it would require a lot of work (the abilities), but...
I won't do an in-depth moveset for Kirby, there are a lot of moves that I would change, but overall, I'll just say that I want to remove any ability reference in his moveset, because I would give him canon abilities from inhaling opponents instead of copying one move.

First, I'd change his grabs so that he inhales to enhance the range (but he doesn't eat the enemy, he just grabs it like with the Throw Ability in Kirby's Adventure).
Then, I would make his moveset more faithful to his skills in the actual Kirby games.
He can damage enemies by dropping by face on them: that would be his down aerial. He can break blocks and damage enemies with his head, that's his up smash (a small jump with an head-attack). In Canvas Curse and Rainbow Curse he can curl in a ball, charge a power roll and hit the enemies, damage them and bounce back? That would be his side special, while his dash attack would be the iconic slide.
His up special would be a warp star, less powerful than the item. His forward aerial attack would be the air puff from the Kirby games.
And so on.
He can keep some Fighter Ability moves and some generic attacks where source material to take inspiration from is missing.

Now, the copy abilities: they only change some special moves; up special stays the same with most of the abilities (warpstar) with some exceptions such as High Jump.

ESP -
Fire -
Needle (modern moveset, down special on land will do the up spike) -
Wheel -
Fighter -
Sword -
Water -
Jet -
Stone (stone uppercut punch included) -
Doctor -
Bomb -
Laser -
Hammer -
Artist -
Mirror -
Circus -
Mike (limited use) -
High Jump -
Staff -
Spark -
Archer/Sniper or Cupid/Angel -
Whip -
Beam -
Ninja -
Nothing/steal ability -

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

God dammit man, you know better than to generalize people's feelings based on your own subjective feelings.

I don't really think I need to go on anymore if we've already established that what is a "good" revamp is solely based on a case by case subjective viewpoint. We all agree on that, right?

Personally, I think Ganon's changes aren't enough in the right direction while Link's are, if only to differentiate him from the two other Links. I think Bowser's changes in Smash 4 were honestly the BEST overall, because even back in Melee as someone who also played Super Mario Galaxy and Mario Kart, it always bothered me that Bowser was more animal than in any game I ever saw him in. Pit is kinda meh on either front. I never felt a big change in his style overall.

So MY subjective feelings:

SSBU Ganondorf: Not far enough
SSBU Link: Pretty darn good
SSB4 Bowser: AMAZING
SSB4 Pit: No comment

I'm sure you'll find some people who share my views on these as well as those who disagree. The point here is that it doesn't really give a good indicator of why changing movesets is a good or bad thing. It all depends on what is done and how. Just say "I'm not fond of recent moveset changes for certain characters that happen to increase canonicity". You can't then jump the gun to "moveset changes that increase canonicity are always bad". Because, and I mean this only in the most positive way I can muster, it makes it seem like you're projecting your opinions as facts.

I agree with Quillion that the changes to Ganondorf are lame as hell. Even if it’s not a fact, there is definitely a significant portion of players who didn’t want a change in his move set for what?—a parlortrait? They literally gave him Ike’s Forward and Up Smash, and have him Cloud’s Down Smash. In the same game where people complain about sword characters, you want him to use a sword? Well, we got it, and it’s blatantly unoriginal and unsatisfying to look at.

Instead of having characters representative of fighting character archetypes we have cheesy little characters that just mirror what they did in their games instead of thinking outside of the box. Bowser is a great example, because having a move like the Koopa Klaw, which was a variable command throw that simultaneously functioned a disjointed attacking with a set of unique throws and aerial pummel, was discarded for flying slam, a lame suicide move or basic kill confirm. Sure, it’s not cannon, but the move was unique, felt great to land, and gave him the only true aerial grab / pummel in smash. Where’s the logic in ridding a character of something like that just because they did something in another game. Smash IS another game.

While it may work for some characters who have moved that are just enhancements on traditional martial arts (sword fighters), some of the changes are incredibly infuriating because you know how it will change the way they play. Personally, I’m 50/50 with Link, as having a tether sort of helped against characters who space away, but now he plays a more aggressive game with his remote bomb, he can item manipulate with his arrows, allowing him to throw them or shoot two at once, his beam attack happens at 0% which may be...useless, depending on the match up, but these give incentive to play Young Link.

However, it’s still not right to just mesh too much from the source material in the game. If we have characters like Captain Falcon and Fox, then I think leaning in that direction would be suitable for characters. Not saying that source material shouldn’t be visited, but it shouldn’t be so blatant that it’s there only because it is, and not serving a purpose for the players experience.

 

[Necro'lic]

Instead of having characters representative of fighting character archetypes we have cheesy little characters that just mirror what they did in their games instead of thinking outside of the box.

I'm curious as to what examples you have of this and how trying to mirror fighting character archetypes is synonymous with thinking outside the box, as you seem to imply here. Wouldn't making a fighting archetype out of a canon representation of the character be FAR more outside the box?

 

[Quillion]

I'm curious as to what examples you have of this and how trying to mirror fighting character archetypes is synonymous with thinking outside the box, as you seem to imply here. Wouldn't making a fighting archetype out of a canon representation of the character be FAR more outside the box?

Well, considering that turning the Dorf from one of the most brutal and calculating punchers into just another heavy sword user was a homogenizing decision that ruined his fun factor, there are certainly times that making characters more canon just won't work in Smash's context. And no, giving the moveset to Black Shadow will ruin the moveset by putting it on a lame nobody.

Would you want Mario to turn into essentially SoPo with his hammer? Would you want Zelda to be a third Pit with her Light Bow?

 

[Necro'lic]

Well, considering that turning the Dorf from one of the most brutal and calculating punchers into just another heavy sword user was a homogenizing decision that ruined his fun factor, there are certainly times that making characters more canon just won't work in Smash's context. And no, giving the moveset to Black Shadow will ruin the moveset by putting it on a lame nobody.

Would you want Mario to turn into essentially SoPo with his hammer? Would you want Zelda to be a third Pit with her Light Bow?

In terms of Ganon, I don't think having three moves involving his sword makes him a sword user. Also, in terms of flavor, none of them were punches. Honestly, the only real problem I have is again, they didn't go far enough with it. Sure, you don't have to replace ALL of Ganon's new moves, nor do they have to be sword based (I would prefer them to not be honestly), but to say he's gone from being a punch based brawler to a heavy sword user over replacing three moves, none of which were punches, with sword swings is definitely hyperbole.

As for Mario, the one and only move I would potentially find "eh" is the Cape, but I wouldn't really change his normals or grabs at all. As for Zelda, I already did a rework for her and I would give her very few new moves really, and they wouldn't even be based on canon.

I don't think you were trying to answer the question you quoted me for, but on the off chance you were, you haven't convinced me.

 

[Crystanium]

I didn't realize there were people who only used Smashboards. It's just his throws, Luigi isn't going to suck.

I know. There's a difference between a throw and a grab. You can't throw if you're not holding or grabbing something. It's akin to confusing a trip and a fall. One can trip without falling, although falling doesn't necessarily mean one tripped.

It's an unethical change.

No it's not. It's pretty neutral. There's no harm done to anyone. I suppose if you wanted to argue that it's unethical, you could only get so far as saying it's bad, but not impermissible. Ex.: Eating meat.

 

[Quillion]

I don't think you were trying to answer the question you quoted me for, but on the off chance you were, you haven't convinced me.

Okay then, let me ask you this: would giving Fox the Assault weapons make him more enjoyable? Sure, he could be a speedy gunner archetype, but how's that more enjoyable than the relentless rushdown fighter of right now?

 

[Necro'lic]

Okay then, let me ask you this: would giving Fox the Assault weapons make him more enjoyable? Sure, he could be a speedy gunner archetype, but how's that more enjoyable than the relentless rushdown fighter of right now?

Well it depends on a few factors. Do I personally enjoy speedy gunner vs rushdown? I'm kinda impartial on both fronts, since they seem almost identical to me as fast characters overall, though I'd probably lean towards gunner in this particular case, since I'm a sucker for zoners. However, I am a stickler for overall playstyles for characters, and speaking in a hypothetical Smash game designer viewpoint, I would like to keep Fox as a general high-risk, high-reward rushdown.

So what next? Well if I was still quite adamant on the deal of changing up his specials to be reference to Star Fox Assault, how could we do that without ruining that playstyle? Well, let's make sure if there are projectiles, they aren't very powerful overall. Let's maybe have a move that has a high-risk with an equally high reward, etc. I've never played Star Fox Assault, but I can assure you that if I gleaned over some of the weaponry of that game I can find at least a few things to base around this.

So to answer your initial question: the simple act of giving him canonicity to SF:Assault alone is not enough to make him more enjoyable. However, since there is little limit in how you can program these weapons to be pretty faithful to the source material while sustaining Fox's playstyle, I think it's better to at least make an attempt than to not try at all.

 

[Crystanium]

My thing about being truer with canon is that I'm not saying a character must utilize everything from their series. I'm also not saying that a character's moveset should always be updated with the new title at the time. Sure, there are certain aspects I think would be more useful, such as changing Samus' u-tilt to match Melee Counter. Yet, Samus' u-tilt as is has been reliable in some instances for me. I can't imagine Samus' u-tilt as Melee Counter would be able to punish or kill my opponent for grabbing the ledge more than once.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

I'm curious as to what examples you have of this and how trying to mirror fighting character archetypes is synonymous with thinking outside the box, as you seem to imply here. Wouldn't making a fighting archetype out of a canon representation of the character be FAR more outside the box?

I don’t think you’re reading what I’m saying right.

Making characters based off of a fighting archetype has been the path that smash has followed for some time. Mario / Luigi being shotoken fighters (Ryu & Ken); all-around fighters that have a simple but effective move set.

Bowser, being the example of a kaiju, as Quillion so eloquently put it, was representative of heavy weight characters that are good at close range, have solid grappling game, and are naturally intimidating to be around. Some of the changes to his moves may have improved portions of his character, but many were change for the sake of something appearing to be an accurate representation of their character, rather than a function that will improve the fluidity and feel of playing with Saud character; replacing Koopa Klaw with Bowser Slam was the example I was talking about earlier.

I’m not implying that mirroring what characters do in their games is necessarily bad; Marth is a great example of how you can implement a critical hit mechanic into his character, same with his Shield breaker paying homage to his weapons ability to pierce through armor in his games. But changing Ganon’s Smash attack’s to swords does not represent nearly the same amount of thought and depth as the former; it’s just giving people who cried about it what they wanted, in the form of making it feel and look way too inconsistent with his character. It’s like if you suddenly gave Captain Falcon his Gun for only his smash attack’s; why would he need to? It’s not congruent with his character.

I’m not against characters being tailored to their individual games, but only if it is done correctly, and not just doing it simply “just because”. This applies to Gabon using his Sword and Luigi’s dumb ass vacuum.

Character archetypes give a character a purpose, and there are many of them that don’t completely diverge from source material, but use it as a point to build from. Spider man in the Marvel vs Capcom series is s great example. He uses webs to maneuver and trap opponents, but does so in a manner where it can function as a traditional fire ball. Moves like Crawler Assault, Maximum Spider, Ultimate Web Throw, Spider Sting never existed in their respective comics and shows, but they were an exciting take on what the character can do outside of his / her universe. Jin is basically Captain Falcon, as he pilots a mech, but he has moves that are original as well as ones that incorporate his mech, Bloodia, like Bloodia Punch. Same with Captain Commando, Iron Man / War Machine, and especially Megaman. He never punches or kicks yet he feels better to play in MvC than in smash bros because he is engaging and his moves connect fluidly. Even Sakurai took his Mega Upper and incorporated into his move set, that is directly from Marvel vs Capcom, which was in term a made up move from the development staff! What does that say about going purely for source material? Lol

The issue here is that there is a blur between the lines of inspiration vs immitation. I would sooner that characters have moves that diverge away from the source as long as it feels good to play with, because the novelty of “oh! they did that I’m their game!” wears off pretty quick, vs having a character that functions and feels as they should. If it worked for Falcon, Fox, Falco, Sheik (most definitely), Greninja and many others, then it should be the staffs prerogative to ensure that a character is functionally sound above all else.

 

[Necro'lic]

I don’t think you’re reading what I’m saying right.

Making characters based off of a fighting archetype has been the path that smash has followed for some time. Mario / Luigi being shotoken fighters (Ryu & Ken); all-around fighters that have a simple but effective move set.

Bowser, being the example of a kaiju, as Quillion so eloquently put it, was representative of heavy weight characters that are good at close range, have solid grappling game, and are naturally intimidating to be around. Some of the changes to his moves may have improved portions of his character, but many were change for the sake of something appearing to be an accurate representation of their character, rather than a function that will improve the fluidity and feel of playing with Saud character; replacing Koopa Klaw with Bowser Slam was the example I was talking about earlier.

I’m not implying that mirroring what characters do in their games is necessarily bad; Marth is a great example of how you can implement a critical hit mechanic into his character, same with his Shield breaker paying homage to his weapons ability to pierce through armor in his games. But changing Ganon’s Smash attack’s to swords does not represent nearly the same amount of thought and depth as the former; it’s just giving people who cried about it what they wanted, in the form of making it feel and look way too inconsistent with his character. It’s like if you suddenly gave Captain Falcon his Gun for only his smash attack’s; why would he need to? It’s not congruent with his character.

I’m not against characters being tailored to their individual games, but only if it is done correctly, and not just doing it simply “just because”. This applies to Gabon using his Sword and Luigi’s dumb *** vacuum.

Character archetypes give a character a purpose, and there are many of them that don’t completely diverge from source material, but use it as a point to build from. Spider man in the Marvel vs Capcom series is s great example. He uses webs to maneuver and trap opponents, but does so in a manner where it can function as a traditional fire ball. Moves like Crawler Assault, Maximum Spider, Ultimate Web Throw, Spider Sting never existed in their respective comics and shows, but they were an exciting take on what the character can do outside of his / her universe. Jin is basically Captain Falcon, as he pilots a mech, but he has moves that are original as well as ones that incorporate his mech, Bloodia, like Bloodia Punch. Same with Captain Commando, Iron Man / War Machine, and especially Megaman. He never punches or kicks yet he feels better to play in MvC than in smash bros because he is engaging and his moves connect fluidly. Even Sakurai took his Mega Upper and incorporated into his move set, that is directly from Marvel vs Capcom, which was in term a made up move from the development staff! What does that say about going purely for source material? Lol

The issue here is that there is a blur between the lines of inspiration vs immitation. I would sooner that characters have moves that diverge away from the source as long as it feels good to play with, because the novelty of “oh! they did that I’m their game!” wears off pretty quick, vs having a character that functions and feels as they should. If it worked for Falcon, Fox, Falco, Sheik (most definitely), Greninja and many others, then it should be the staffs prerogative to ensure that a character is functionally sound above all else.

I mean, I get your meaning, but it seems we just have different priorities on what we expect from Smash Bros' characters. Now since this is personal opinion, I personally have little problem with characters having little canonicity as long as they at the VERY least seem semi-comparable to their canon selves. However, some particular cases will always irk me regardless, especially for some characters, and they just happen to involve clones/semi-clones mostly, but it's more to me a sign of laziness to me when you clearly have unique source materials to go off of, yet you choose not to.

But again, it's a case by case, and honestly, some of the reworks have been hit or miss over the years. Except Bowser; I'm usually one to be open to new ideas, but just this once, I am standing my ground on the Bowser rework as nothing but a good thing. Do I like Koopa Klaw more than Flying Slam? Honestly I think both moves are meh. But Flying Slam didn't come with that rework and Flying Slam isn't canon to Bowser, so it's irrelevant. In fact, I would say that almost all of the moves fully changed in the Bowser rework didn't change functionally in a noticeable way. It's to the point where to argue Bowser's Melee/Brawl incarnation is any better is to simply argue nostalgia and little else.

That aside... it all depends on how it affects gameplay sure, but Smash Bros is about characters from other series coming together. So in this particular case, while I would definitely keep a baseline playstyle, I would give canonicity a slight step up. If I were a Smash designer, my process would be something like:

1. Find all potential fighting abilities that is in canon for this character
2. Build an outline for a playstyle than may or may not be close to canon, but something at least interesting
3. Look at those canon examples and see what can work with that playstyle you've outlined
4. Figure out how to work those canon things into being compatible with that playstyle via stats/numbers/etc.
5. If you can't make a canon reference work at this point, scrap it

This, again, is the order I would do it. The lower the potential fighting game style references, the less "canon" they will inevitably be. It's why I'm not really complaining about Captain Falcon's canonicity at all, but I definitely was at Bowser's, because his is less "not enough canon reference" and more "this is not Bowser at all".

I'm sort of ramble typing, but it's not that I don't agree with your examples (at least most of them) nor disagree with the idea of having playstyle over canonicity, but I'm of the camp of "at least try making it work before you scrap the notion of doing it".

 

[TheTrueBrawler]

I have an idea for . For some of his moves, he throws Cappy to fight instead of throwing punches. This doesn't apply to all of his moves, but it mostly affects grounded moves, and one of his aerials. I would also replace his Side Special for a functionally similar but more iconic move.

Spoiler: Moves

Forward Tilt - Functionally the same as before, but throws Cappy to do his bidding instead.

Up Tilt - Mario does nothing, but Cappy flies upwards hitting opponents and returning to Mario. It comes out almost immediately, but the end lag is extended.

Down Tilt - Cappy flies along the ground. He flies further out than Mario's former down tilt, but it leaves Mario a bit more vulnerable. This move trades range for speed.

Down Smash - Cappy does a circular motion two times around Mario's feet. The first one is a hefty blow, but the late hit trips opponents where they stand.

Back Aerial - Functionally the same as before, but throws Cappy to do his bidding instead.

Side Special - Does the spin from Super Mario Galaxy. Functionally it is similar to Cape. The move reflects projectiles, and it helps Mario recover a bit. The differences are that the move now knocks them away from Mario and at a slightly downwards angle instead of turning them around, and it works on both sides of Mario.

 

[Luigifan18]

If every move was still the same, Olimar would still keep that ugly recovery from Brawl, and Pit wouldn't look as nice as in Smash 4.

Also, do we really want to keep the falling on the floor mechanic and gliding from Brawl?

Tripping can stay away, but gliding was nice.

Because they make less sense canonically. Smash Bros is a game that brings Nintendo and even some third party fighters together to battle to the death (or see who gets the most kills and dies the least if you’re not competitive), but if characters aren’t themselves then there really isn’t a point to bringing them to whatever stage you happen to be playing on at all.

Besides, characters in the competitive realm are based on frame data, damage, launch power, hit boxes, general statistics, and more. Not based on what type of moves they use. I would argue that Zelda’s current move set hasn’t worked, and that any other move set for her is better than what we currently have based on the tier lists of the past three games.

The only reasons for keeping the outdated and irrelevant move sets is because people are reluctant to change. Now why does that argument seem familiar?

What does Melee have to do with this?

 

[Necro'lic]

Tripping can stay away, but gliding was nice.

What does Melee have to do with this?

I'm guessing he likened the reluctance to change outdated movesets to the reluctance of Melee players from going away from Melee?

On a surface level, I see the comparison, but looking deeper, I think some people are reluctant to moveset changes because they've been hit and miss over the years, similar to post-Melee stuff in general (at least in their view).

 

[TheTrueBrawler]

What does Melee have to do with this?

The connection was "Reluctance of Change", and no matter the case, it brings hardships and heated feuds within the Smash community. It's just that the argument between Smash Melee and future Smash games is the most prevalent.

 

[Quillion]

The connection was "Reluctance of Change", and no matter the case, it brings hardships and heated feuds within the Smash community. It's just that the argument between Smash Melee and future Smash games is the most prevalent.

And why does this make changing veteran movesets a good thing? Don't you think that there's a legitimate reason as to why there's going to pushback towards unnecessary moveset changes like those done to Bowser, Ganondorf, and Link?

We just want to play as the characters we love in more polished physics environments and with more polished balance. Making Bowser upright and giving Ganondorf a sword are unnecessary changes that fail to give us what we want.

 

[Mamboo07]

I would redesign Wario with his new moveset from Land series and World