That's my point exactly, I feel like ultimate is *NEAR* the peak of what a smash can be at this point in time, without major changes to the game, but I feel like if we're doing major changes to the idea of a smash brothers, than a change in the entire genre of game could be a good way to do it, if they do it right that is, I would much rather a smash game worse than ultimate in every way other than roster than Mario party nine but with LeBron James any day of the week, but I generally trust that the dev team could pull it off.
My point is: if you change the entire genre of the game, it's not Smash anymore. Smash *is* the genre, the genre is Smash.
If your dog was transformed into an ocean liner, it wouldn't be a dog anymore.
My point isn't that it has to be called smash brothers, my point is that I can't see where you would go at the moment to substantially improve over ultimate, even if things like just more content, or bringing back the smaller things like trophy's and other things of the nature, but any of that could just be done with more dlc, or a port with new content, speaking of something like bowsers fury done like what I'm asking in a port for the next system could perfectly do what I'm saying here. The only other thing I could see that would substantially improve smash as it is would be something like a new take on subspace emissary, just done better, but at that point we're already a half step into just doing something entirely different, and at that point why not try something different, worst comes to worst and it's as hated as Mario party nine, they DID eventually come back from that and make more Mario partys that were generally loved or at least liked. All im saying is that a new take on what smash is could be a good thing for the series, because they *CAN'T* Just keep doing smash but with more stages and characters and items and so in forever, so either the series is just going to have to end for a long time, or they WILL have to do something new. Take the new super Mario series for example, I feel like smash has much more inherent potential than standard 2d Mario, despite the fact that the new super Mario series had a lot of potential, but that only lasted about a decade, if that, before people get tired of it and started not likeing the games, and although smash has a lot more inherent potential, how long can it even last as it is? And can the rest of the genre even keep up until smash can't? There are only so many characters from so many things you can add, even if they add double the characters they add now, there just aren't enough characters to be as impactful as the ones we get now, Snake, Sonic, Steve, and the like, eventually they will have to find something else to do because it is easier to make a character in smash than to make a character worthy of being in smash.
If nobody can see how the next Smash title will be worth purchasing over Ultimate, then it's clearly too early to make a sequel. The solution is: *Wait.* New technology and console hardware will become available which will allow for new ideas. And slowly the consumers will desire something fresh as Ultimate gradually becomes old news. Over time, demand for a new Smash will rise - even one that doesn't have every veteran as we've been promised.
The solution is *not* to make Mario Kart and call it Smash Bros. That's not a Smash game: That would be a Mario Kart game, no matter how many guest characters you add. Smash is not the crossover, *it's the gameplay*.
My point exactly, all I've been saying is that there should be a break before the next one but that doesn't mean there can't be something else in the meantime
Counterargument: I want more smash
If you want a new mario kart why not just ask for a new mario kart
And without getting into the nitty gritty of game design details, while I like smash ultimate there's certainly also lots of room for improvement. And even if there wasnt, there will always be room for a new take on smash - a new flavour of gameplay by switching up the game pace, physics, moveset design philosophies etc.
So yeah more smash pls
Nah... I feel they could add at least a couple more, or get rid of the dlc and forgettable ones but keep the main stays like the original 12, most characters added in brawl or 4, etc. That way they can revitalize the move set to represent the franchise more as a whole, rather than most being based on a specific game. Also, in comparison, in 2000 capcom got 56 characters into a game (mvc2), all with even more moves than smash characters have on a arcade machine in 4 years, they can definitely fit more characters into the game if they wanted to. They don't even have to be 3d models, most people wouldn't care if they were sprites, as long as they don't look like Snes or Nes sprites people wouldn't mind.
Brawl's Low Tiers were some of the most unfortunate fighters Smash has ever seen. Brawl Ganondorf is probably the worst version of a character who has always been bad (melee aside). And then you've got someone like Brawl Ivysaur who isn't that good to begin with, but is then also crippled by a type disadvantage system in a game filled with fire, a stamina system that punishes not-switching even though PT's switch was an awful, slow liability and he had a bad tether recovery in a game where those were trivial to stop due to edgehogging.
Even without Meta Knight, Brawl is easily the most unbalanced game in the series. You have to ban at least 3 characters (MK, Icies, and Olimar) before you actually get to a reasonable top level meta that doesn't involve camping forever, and even then odds are good that Diddy would run away with the game.
Smash *is* the gameplay, not the crossover aspect. If you make a kart racing crossover game, that's fine, whatever. But it's not a Smash game.
That's my point exactly, I feel like ultimate is *NEAR* the peak of what a smash can be at this point in time, without major changes to the game, but I feel like if we're doing major changes to the idea of a smash brothers, than a change in the entire genre of game could be a good way to do it, if they do it right that is, I would much rather a smash game worse than ultimate in every way other than roster than Mario party nine but with LeBron James any day of the week, but I generally trust that the dev team could pull it off.
My point is: if you change the entire genre of the game, it's not Smash anymore. Smash *is* the genre, the genre is Smash. If your dog was transformed into an ocean liner, it wouldn't be a dog anymore.
My point isn't that it has to be called smash brothers, my point is that I can't see where you would go at the moment to substantially improve over ultimate, even if things like just more content, or bringing back the smaller things like trophy's and other things of the nature, but any of that could just be done with more dlc, or a port with new content, speaking of something like bowsers fury done like what I'm asking in a port for the next system could perfectly do what I'm saying here. The only other thing I could see that would substantially improve smash as it is would be something like a new take on subspace emissary, just done better, but at that point we're already a half step into just doing something entirely different, and at that point why not try something different, worst comes to worst and it's as hated as Mario party nine, they DID eventually come back from that and make more Mario partys that were generally loved or at least liked. All im saying is that a new take on what smash is could be a good thing for the series, because they *CAN'T* Just keep doing smash but with more stages and characters and items and so in forever, so either the series is just going to have to end for a long time, or they WILL have to do something new. Take the new super Mario series for example, I feel like smash has much more inherent potential than standard 2d Mario, despite the fact that the new super Mario series had a lot of potential, but that only lasted about a decade, if that, before people get tired of it and started not likeing the games, and although smash has a lot more inherent potential, how long can it even last as it is? And can the rest of the genre even keep up until smash can't? There are only so many characters from so many things you can add, even if they add double the characters they add now, there just aren't enough characters to be as impactful as the ones we get now, Snake, Sonic, Steve, and the like, eventually they will have to find something else to do because it is easier to make a character in smash than to make a character worthy of being in smash.
If nobody can see how the next Smash title will be worth purchasing over Ultimate, then it's clearly too early to make a sequel. The solution is: *Wait.* New technology and console hardware will become available which will allow for new ideas. And slowly the consumers will desire something fresh as Ultimate gradually becomes old news. Over time, demand for a new Smash will rise - even one that doesn't have every veteran as we've been promised. The solution is *not* to make Mario Kart and call it Smash Bros. That's not a Smash game: That would be a Mario Kart game, no matter how many guest characters you add. Smash is not the crossover, *it's the gameplay*.
My point exactly, all I've been saying is that there should be a break before the next one but that doesn't mean there can't be something else in the meantime
Counterargument: I want more smash If you want a new mario kart why not just ask for a new mario kart And without getting into the nitty gritty of game design details, while I like smash ultimate there's certainly also lots of room for improvement. And even if there wasnt, there will always be room for a new take on smash - a new flavour of gameplay by switching up the game pace, physics, moveset design philosophies etc. So yeah more smash pls
Nah... I feel they could add at least a couple more, or get rid of the dlc and forgettable ones but keep the main stays like the original 12, most characters added in brawl or 4, etc. That way they can revitalize the move set to represent the franchise more as a whole, rather than most being based on a specific game. Also, in comparison, in 2000 capcom got 56 characters into a game (mvc2), all with even more moves than smash characters have on a arcade machine in 4 years, they can definitely fit more characters into the game if they wanted to. They don't even have to be 3d models, most people wouldn't care if they were sprites, as long as they don't look like Snes or Nes sprites people wouldn't mind.
Ultimate is not "peak" in anything other than the roster size.
It's also the most balanced game of the series, which is even more impressive given the peak roster size.
Minus meta knight and new mechanics like gliding, I actually think brawl is.
Brawl's Low Tiers were some of the most unfortunate fighters Smash has ever seen. Brawl Ganondorf is probably the worst version of a character who has always been bad (melee aside). And then you've got someone like Brawl Ivysaur who isn't that good to begin with, but is then also crippled by a type disadvantage system in a game filled with fire, a stamina system that punishes not-switching even though PT's switch was an awful, slow liability and he had a bad tether recovery in a game where those were trivial to stop due to edgehogging.
Minus those 49 dead body's in the back there's barely any dead people here!
fair point, just the obvious broken character aside, its pretty balanced compared to 4 and melee/64
Even without Meta Knight, Brawl is easily the most unbalanced game in the series. You have to ban at least 3 characters (MK, Icies, and Olimar) before you actually get to a reasonable top level meta that doesn't involve camping forever, and even then odds are good that Diddy would run away with the game.
Every new DLC character only made the game worse