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

Hiku said:
Xxain said:

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.

How was Marth relevant in Japan?
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).

I have aready given my viewpoint on this bro. Ultimate is a celebration of the last 20 years Smash Bro's before hitting the reset button. With that in mind relevancy is not a topic that they have to consider. Of course as much content from those 20 years should be included. Its a celebration game! I don't know why you brought up Solid Snake? I already said I think all the current 3rd party should the cut and then the team pick new/current 3rd party reps. Yes, Snake should go.  All conversation about how they proceed with roster is post reset, where they aren't contrained by the series luggage. It has to happen, it will happen. Fighters are unique in the sense that there is a definite upper limit where it becomes just many characters to deal with. Some characters will return. Some wont/shouldnt and they have to find a system that helps decide that. The most logical is what is relevant in current market with Nintendo and 3rd parties.



Around the Network

I did not propse to cut Yoshi, just that he should not be todays OG 8. That post focused on who would be the 8 in todays time for a reset.



Xxain said:

I have aready given my viewpoint on this bro. Ultimate is a celebration of the last 20 years Smash Bro's before hitting the reset button. With that in mind relevancy is not a topic that they have to consider. Of course as much content from those 20 years should be included. Its a celebration game! I don't know why you brought up Solid Snake? I already said I think all the current 3rd party should the cut and then the team pick new/current 3rd party reps. Yes, Snake should go.  All conversation about how they proceed with roster is post reset, where they aren't contrained by the series luggage. It has to happen, it will happen. Fighters are unique in the sense that there is a definite upper limit where it becomes just many characters to deal with. Some characters will return. Some wont/shouldnt and they have to find a system that helps decide that. The most logical is what is relevant in current market with Nintendo and 3rd parties.

I brought up Snake (Marth applies as well) because you said that they always consider relevancy aside from ROB. And if that's the case, I'm not sure how you quantify it.

But aside from that, I see what you mean about resetting the roster, as fighting games do that at times. And what you meant by the current 8. That if there were only 8, you'd prioritize those franchises over Yoshi.

Last edited by Hiku - on 13 September 2019

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. 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.

That makes pretty much no difference, and had they not included Marth in Melee Fire Emblem wouldn't have taken off in the rest of the world.

AHYL88 said:
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.

Screw logic, I guess.

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

You have no idea how much that would just piss people off.

Hiku said:
Xxain said:

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.

^THIS!!



Some days I just blow up.

CaptainExplosion said:
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.

Pretty sure he never said specifically 5 more, did he? He just said "more", we don't know how many it'll be yet.

As for this other argument going around of cutting Fox and Captain Falcon, um... yeah, like, no.



Around the Network

I'll stop buying Smash Bros. the day they cut both the Earthbound and Mother 3 reps.



morenoingrato said:
I'll stop buying Smash Bros. the day they cut both the Earthbound and Mother 3 reps.

You'd be far from the only one.

That's even worse than when other publishers cut a mainstay fighter from a roster and then sell him/her back as DLC.

EDIT: Imagine the controversy going on with Sword and Shield right now with the cut Pokedex, and apply that to Smash...



Really the only feasible character cut I can see is Dr. Mario. He'd be just as good as an alt costume for Mario.



Some days I just blow up.

Cutting characters will get them backlash no matter what. Nintendo and Sakurai have somewhat driven themselves into a corner with this game. Personally I’m not a fan of cutting content, some 3rd party stuff could be excused, but overal I want to see things move forward instead of backward. I don’t see why, easily put, they can’t just copy-paste what they have and build further on that.



He is lying