Quantcast
Sakurai: "No way" future Smash Bros. games will have as many fighters as Ultimate

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Sakurai: "No way" future Smash Bros. games will have as many fighters as Ultimate

Xxain said:
Dulfite said:
I feel like the best way to handle it is to keep the core Nintendo characters, but scrap any outdated Nintendo/3rd party characters and replace them with current gen characters.

I was going to say this too. 

Mario

Pikachu

Samus

Link

Kirby

Donkey Kong

Yoshi

Fox

This is the original 8. It represents what was popular with Nintendo at the time.

A new 8 would look something like this:

Mario

Link

Current release Pokemon

Current release Fire Emblem

Splatoon

animal crossing

Kirby

Xeno

Only focusing on what is going on with the current Nintendo/industry would bring in a lot of different and fresh IP's. Also I think limiting the each IP representation to 3 max would be a good move too.

But what about old characters who haven't had any new games but are still popular? You can't cut Fox and Captain Falcon.



Some days I just blow up.

Around the Network

At TGS Sakurai said that Iwata's last request to him was to make Smash Bros Ultimate.
So this may be why he's expanding the roster and worlds in the game so much, to make it the biggest Smash game ever.



Hiku said:

At TGS Sakurai said that Iwata's last request to him was to make Smash Bros Ultimate.
So this may be why he's expanding the roster and worlds in the game so much, to make it the biggest Smash game ever.

That explains why he said 5 more DLC characters after the current ones.



Some days I just blow up.

CaptainExplosion said:
Xxain said:

I was going to say this too. 

Mario

Pikachu

Samus

Link

Kirby

Donkey Kong

Yoshi

Fox

This is the original 8. It represents what was popular with Nintendo at the time.

A new 8 would look something like this:

Mario

Link

Current release Pokemon

Current release Fire Emblem

Splatoon

animal crossing

Kirby

Xeno

Only focusing on what is going on with the current Nintendo/industry would bring in a lot of different and fresh IP's. Also I think limiting the each IP representation to 3 max would be a good move too.

But what about old characters who haven't had any new games but are still popular? You can't cut Fox and Captain Falcon.

...... Why cant they be cut? They're not relevant. I would personally spare fox just because he had a recent game, but F Zero and Earthbound are definite cuts. All third party should be cut and redecided based on relevancy and also being fresh; I dont think Sonic should come back. Hes Ran his course. Pick a new Sega rep.

  Lets just say the Smash reboot will feature 30 characters. Minus the absolutes like Mario and Link, they should be 30 NEW characters. Long running IP's need to have a reset button at some point and Smash is at that point in regards to characters and game design. 



Xxain said:
CaptainExplosion said:

But what about old characters who haven't had any new games but are still popular? You can't cut Fox and Captain Falcon.

...... Why cant they be cut? They're not relevant.

I think character's 'relevance' in games like these are more of an added bonus, than an importance.

For example, how relevant was Marth, mainly in the west, when Melee released?
I had never played any of his games. And yet for me he was the most fun character in the game, by far. So much so that I barely ever used anyone else.

Last edited by Hiku - on 13 September 2019

Around the Network
Hiku said:
Xxain said:

...... Why cant they be cut? They're not relevant.

I think character's 'relevance' in games like these are more of an added bonus, than an importance.

For example, how relevant was Marth, mainly in the west, when Melee released?
I had never played any of his games. And yet for me he was the most fun character in the game, by far. So much so that I barely ever used anyone else.

^THIS!! And aren't they relavent again now that they're in a game EVERY TIME WE GET A NEW SMASH BROS.?



Some days I just blow up.

Hiku said:
Xxain said:

...... Why cant they be cut? They're not relevant.

I think character's 'relevance' in games like these are more of an added bonus, than an importance.

For example, how relevant was Marth, mainly in the west, when Melee released?
I had never played any of his games. And yet for me he was the most fun character in the game, by far. So much so that I barely ever used anyone else.

The inclusion of Fire Emblem was at that time, catering to the Japanese. Marth was relevant over there. Marth is the OG protagonist and had appeared in multiple FE's at that point (I think the only FE protagonist to get multiple appearances) with Roy just having his game about to be released. I would not call relevancy an "added bonus" as there is no character minus R.O.B (who is just there to be the shock character) that at the time of their inclusion they were not relevant somehow. Developers are clearly thinking about this topic.



It's hard to believe, even though granted the quantity of characters is overwhelming, that people would rather have less characters, in a day and age we're living in with micro-transactions and loot boxes.



I forgot to say that characters like Captain Falcon can just delegated to Assist trophies.



Xxain said:
Hiku said:

I think character's 'relevance' in games like these are more of an added bonus, than an importance.

For example, how relevant was Marth, mainly in the west, when Melee released?
I had never played any of his games. And yet for me he was the most fun character in the game, by far. So much so that I barely ever used anyone else.

The inclusion of Fire Emblem was at that time, catering to the Japanese. Marth was relevant over there. Marth is the OG protagonist and had appeared in multiple FE's at that point (I think the only FE protagonist to get multiple appearances) with Roy just having his game about to be released.

Not sure I understand how Marth was relevant in Japan? At least not more than the characters you cut from the list.
When Melee came out in 2001, Marth had been in two games. One on NES in 1990, and the other on SNES in 1994.
There had been two new generation of consoles released since than, without any Marth.

But you propose to cut Yoshi as 'irrelevant', who had a game in 2019. And Samus who had a game in 2017.
So I don't understand how you quantify relevant and irrelevant. You'd have to explain that.
"He had appeared in multiple games at that point" applies to all the characters you cut from the list of initial 8 as well.

I would not call relevancy an "added bonus" as there is no character minus R.O.B (who is just there to be the shock character) that at the time of their inclusion they were not relevant somehow. Developers are clearly thinking about this topic.

Well you'd have to explain how you quantify relevant and irrelevant.
But I'm referring to how Nintendo went out of their way to include every character that has ever been in Smash, because they feel their inclusions are still important. But apparently you don't think all of them are relevant, or you wouldn't propose cutting a bunch of them out. Solid Snake for example hasn't been in a game for over a decade (2008).

When I said 'relevant', I was referring to your definition of it, which seems linked to other games they've appeared in. 
But I think all of them are automatically made relevant thanks to being in Smash. Similar to how new iterations of other fighting games keep re-adding most of the previous games' cast again in the new one. None of them (usually) have individual games of their own.

Last edited by Hiku - on 13 September 2019