Sarcasm, yes?

And Dark Souls II added the Scholar of the First Sin in its PS4 and Xbone editions; adding content and making minor changes like that are very insignificant, but when 99.9% of the game is the exact same, it's still a port. When it's set in the same world with the same game modes and the same everything but ONLY a few minor tweaks, it's a port. 

When it's a fighting game with at least 10 more fighters than its previous title (68 announced so far, up from the 58 from Smash 4 wiiU), it has new levels (At least 2 we know about), Entirely new modes (Final Destination mode in addition to Omega mode on all stages including ones that weren't in Smash 4 like Termina bay), 1V1 mode that fundamentally alters how the game plays and presents itself, New display modes, a huge improvement in graphic fidelity, and alterations on characters is WAY too much to be a port. 

Sharing characters and stages from prior games in a fighting game is nowhere near enough to call it 'a port'. It's not a port. It's a new game that has characters and levels from prior games in it. It's no more a 'port' than Smash 4 was a port of Smash Brawl. It's no more a port than Street Fighter V or Fifa 18 or MLB The Show 17. 

Cut it out. Stop trying to muddle the discussion with faulty logic and an argument that SOUNDS good on the surface but holds absolutely no strength once you break it down. There are FAR too many changes in this game to be a port. There are far too many added characters, stages, and gameplay features to be a port. It's fundamentally altered despite being very similar with the same basic gameplay underneath it. 

You can call it what ever you like, a enhanced port of a new game, but here is a video of hardcore smash players, asking if its smash 4.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQRcFvnaJ00&t=92s

I just put my thoughts because I was typing in this topic, not that I'm going to argue with someone one way or another.

Just as I believe the Switch is a hybrid. I have reasons why I think it is so, and I could list them. But I'm not going to argue or try to convince anyone else its a hybrid, handheld or home console.

Just as me listed why I think this is a  new game does mean I'm trying to convince anyone of my point. It's like reviewing a video game. If I write a review and give a game a 8/10, that is my view. I'm not out to convince the rest of the world that it is a 8/10 and any other score is wrong.

That's how I see these argument. It's moot and pointless. You can have your opinion on whether its a port or a new game, but that doesn't make it fact. The only fact we have is Nintendo calling it a new game and not a port. Does that make it so? NO, but it sure makes a stronger case than whatever joe blow says online.

Gamexplain just posted a video saying every stage has new lighting and textures. Which just further disproves this port nonsense. I was actually surprised how much better smash ultimate looks in the comparison video, especially considering how they are comparing compressed video to a finished game.
https://youtu.be/O4R8FakDJ6s

What makes this funny is that he describes the stages in older games as ports and how they went the extra mile in this game.

The difference is quite substantial, this hole discussion reminds me of the time when Splatoon 2 was just announced.

btw everyone who uses the "no-new-engine" argument, doesn't know anything about software development.

The biggest difference is on Bridge of Eldin, the background scenery is so much better on Switch.

Going forward I'm going to use the term "enhanced remaster compilation." That more closely describes what this is in my eyes than enhanced port does. It's laughably long but eh!

EDIT: Compilation instead of collection.

Why not just call it Super Smash Bros Ultimate.

Whether its a port, new game, remaster, collection, ect its the ULTIMATE edition.