Would you say Smash Ultimate is... | |||
| A port | 18 | 14.75% | |
| A brand new game | 74 | 60.66% | |
| A compilation | 23 | 18.85% | |
| Something else | 7 | 5.74% | |
| Total: | 122 | ||
Shaunodon said:
When people say the new Call of Duty, or the new Fifa, or the new Madden is just the same game every year, they don't say that in jest. Not sure why you'd be using one of those games as an example of a sequel or new game. |
What do you say to the comparison with MonHun Generations. Was Generations a port for you?
Mnementh said:
What do you say to the comparison with MonHun Generations. Was Generations a port for you? |
My point was that I don't strictly see every Call of Duty or Fifa as a totally new game. Nothing to do with ports, I never mentioned ports.
Smash Ultimate would be a port, because it's essentially the game from WiiU, being enhanced and transferred onto Switch.
Never underestimate gamers ability to invent new things to argue about. 
curl-6 said:
Upgrading existing assets is a standard practice in the development of sequels. You think COD Modern Warfare 2 or Killzone 3 built all the gun models again from scratch? It's not just additional mechanics layered on top of the old either, pre-existing mechanics from 4 have been removed or radically changed. Again, the COD games have perks and mechanics (and guns and maps) that carry over from prior games with modifications, does that mean Black Ops 4 is a port of Black Ops 1? Your logic would define the majority of video game sequels as ports. |
No, your logic defines every version as a new game. By your definition Ultra Street fighter 4 is a brand new entry in the Street fighter series. It is ridiculous. Look at Tekken 6 and 7. Look at SF4 and 5. Look at DoA 5 and 6. Do you not see the difference? Retouching existing assets does not a new game make. It makes it a port or new version. Heck, for example Tales of Graces and Tales of Graces F. The game was graphically improved and had new content on the PS3. It's magically a new game and not a port now? You are making no sense and i wonder if you are doing it on purpose at this point. Surely anyone playing games for many years can identify the difference between a port and a brand new game built from the ground up. Last edited by Nem - on 13 June 2018
Nem said:
No, your logic defines every version as a new game. By your definition Ultra Street fighter 4 is a brand new entry in the Street fighter series. It is ridiculous. Look at Tekken 6 and 7. Look at SF4 and 5. Look at DoA 5 and 6. Do you not see the difference? Retouching existing assets does not a new game make. It makes it a port. Heck, for example Tales of Graces and Tales of Graces F. The game was graphically improved and had new content on the PS3. It's magically a new game and not a port now? You are making no sense and i wonder if you are doing it on purpose at this point. Surely anyone playing games for many years can identify the difference between a port and a brand new game built from the ground up. |
Again, being built from the ground up is not and never has been definitive of a sequel, because most sequels are not in fact built from the ground up. Most sequels are iterative refinements built on the foundation of their forebears, which is exactly what Smash Switch is. It's no more a port of Smash 4 than Brawl is a port of Melee, Black Ops 4 is a port of Black Ops 1, or Splatoon 2 is a port of Splatoon 1.
Mnementh said:
What is with all the changes to fighter and stage models and to the moveset. They said the ultra smashes were all overhauled to bring you back in the action faster. Perfect block has changed and so on. That means for more than 70 fighters readjusting and rebalancing the moves. And bringing back all the fighters from pre-HD eras is more than just adding the DLC. |
Oh for god's sake. What are you people trying to pull here? Street fighter versions often have brand new super for every character. They have new moves, rebalancing, new mechanics, new stages and many times graphical upgrades aswell and NEVER In the history of gaming was that considered a "new" entry in the series. Seriously the bias is strong and isn't in the least amusing. It is NOT a new entry. Say what you want, but it will be remembered as such. You don't get to redefine what something is just cause Nintendo did it this time. Deary me! These forums sometimes... if it's Nintendo related logic goes out the window in 2 seconds. Honestly...
I personally wouldn't call this a new entry like Smash Wii U, Brawl or Melee but its not really a port either. It's basically Ultimate MVC 3 and those other "new" editions.
curl-6 said:
Again, being built from the ground up is not and never has been definitive of a sequel, because most sequels are not in fact built from the ground up. Most sequels are iterative refinements built on the foundation of their forebears, which is exactly what Smash Switch is. It's no more a port of Smash 4 than Brawl is a port of Melee, Black Ops 4 is a port of Black Ops 1, or Splatoon 2 is a port of Splatoon 1. |
You asserting it does not make it so. Again, your definition fails to diferentiate when exactly a game is a port or a new game. It is therefore not a valid definition. By your definition, everything, aslong as it uses a basis of previous assets is a new game. So, everything is a new game. A port, a new version, a remaster or an actual new game are all a new games. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. That is not how you make definitions. You just want to make it now cause Nintendo did it. That is incredibly biased. I think we are gonna have to stop here. I let it go a bit longer but this is a pointless back and forth and i don't want to seem like i'm antagonising. We will have to disagree.
Its a port but not a straight port. They're adding a lot of new assets and content but the skeleton of the game is still Smash 4. They're aware of this which is why they're screwing with fundamental components of the game like shielding and dodging to make it seem like a brand new game.
Nem said:
You asserting it does not make it so. Again, your definition fails to diferentiate when exactly a game is a port or a new game. It is therefore not a valid definition. By your definition, everything, aslong as it uses a basis of previous assets is a new game. So, everything is a new game. A port, a new version, a remaster or an actual new game are all a new games. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. That is not how you make definitions. You just want to make it now cause Nintendo did it. That is incredibly biased. I think we are gonna have to stop here. I let it go a bit longer but this is a pointless back and forth and i don't want to seem like i'm antagonising. We will have to disagree. |
A port is an old game put on new hardware, Smash Switch isn't that because both the graphics and gameplay are new and distinct. Of course, not all the content within it is new, but the same is true of many other sequels out there, like Mario Kart, COD and Splatoon.
If this was just Smash 4 with a few extra characters and stages I'd be the first person to call it out, I have been an outspoken critic of Nintendo's rampant porting of Wii U games to Switch. But this is to Smash 4 what every Smash game to date has been to the one before it; an iterative refinement that redoes the visuals, adds new material, and overhauls the mechanics. As such it's a classical sequel not only in the established tradition of the franchise, but that of the industry as a whole. Sequels that are built completely new from the ground up are in fact a minority within gaming due to the prohibitive costs of doing so.
Last edited by curl-6 - on 13 June 2018
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
