Masahiro Sakurai Says That Super Smash Bros. Ultimate "Could Ruin" Future Games

This is how I feel about Super Mario Maker, tbh. Even though they have some things left out, it almost feels like any further games in the 'new' series or whatever are redundant, even if they could introduce ideas. Maybe it's just me though...

As far as Smash goes, he still has a point. We'll never hear the end of it anytime a character is omitted from now on... 😶

The switch is going to be really hard for me to put down once this game comes out!

I'm fine with this being the last Smash. SF is better anyway.

Yeah, a leak would have destroyed Nintendo's entire e3, the only new announcements would be Mario party and fire emblem, wouldn't have ended well

Nintendo have 3 Fighting games : ARMS, Smash Bros and Punch Out.
Why don't Nintendo make a new Team to make Another Boxing games with Chibi looking and Shirtless like Animal Boxing NDS ?

I’m not worried. Melee still being used for tournaments hasn’t hurt the development of new games.

Obviously, the next title can't just focus on raw number of characters, it needs to focus on heavily refining existing characters and reintroducing the roster through that way.

Just keep porting and updating it. Graphics can't get much better imho so why not keeping it up and running and adding onto new characters and stages as time moves on.

I don't really see this as all the characters does not mean new characters.

I would actually have rathered not every character and more new characters. Sushi Striker, Simon Belmont, ARMS characters, crash bandicoot, captain toad, Rabbid Peach etc

Nah. He just needs to release another one with a good single player mode since this one won’t have it and everything will be fine.

Good thing Nintendo will be port experts by the time the new system comes out.

@AG_Awesome Am I missing a super secret announcement where it's been confirmed this game won't have single player mode?

I thought they couldn't improve on Smash for Wii U. The number of characters in that game was already insane. Now they've added around 12 more or so with 3 of them being new fighters and honestly at this point I highly doubt they'll top this. The ONLY way they will is if they reuse mechanics from this game as a starting point and just build up... and I'm perfectly fine with that if they decide to do so.

Any hate this game gets is absolutely unwarranted. If there's ANYONE unhappy with the character lineup in this game than maybe Smash Bros or even fighting games in general are just not for you.

I will spontaneously combust if Geno doesn't make it in though.

@Anti-Matter

Punch-out isn't a fighting game. It's a singleplayer boss rush game, where one of the entries also includes a tacked-on barebones 2-player mode.

It won't ruined future games... besides having more characters, it looks no better than Wii U version graphically (probably worse).

I hope he only means third-party characters. I genuinely don't know why they'd cut first-party ones after this since they're all present in the current engine and the issue was originally taking the effort to make them in HD and such.

After this, I think the next game needs to do something significantly different in order to top "all playable characters". one cool idea I've heard is being able to pick multiple characters that you can swap out on the fly during a fight

This game is a better fighter because of all the ways it isn't a fighting game.

There's many more ways for it not to be a traditional fighting game.

Smash Bros. is one of those franchises we’ve been lucky to see on every Nintendo System, those who don’t get their chance in Ultimate we can only hope will manage to do so in later installments. Each new game has been able to include someone we’re familiar with from particular Nintendo franchises to finally get their chance as Fighters. For instance Brawl finally brought in Diddy Kong and King Dedede, Smash 4 finally brought in Bowser Jr. and Villager, and Ultimate finally brought in Ridley. Stuff that can’t be accomplishable in one game can always get better chances in a future game.

There’s particular fighters out there that should never get cut from a Smash Bros. Roster, for instance those important characters in Nintendo History and those important characters to Particular Franchises. Sonic is a 3rd Party Fighter who should never be cut from a Smash Bros. game based off his fame.

it doesn't ruin the future games though people will be annoying about characters being left out in the same way people complain when they don't get the new character they wanted. The fan base will remain the same especially when you factor in losing a few but also gaining a few.

Can we get a Street Fighter x Nintendo fighting game? It's long over due

@Anti-Matter You keep that in the Chit-Chat thread, sir!

Wouldn’t mind something simpler or scaled back.

The quote's a bit arrogant, like the game's title. I was a bit disappointed when I heard they were throwing everyone in. How does that inspire the devs? A next step for Smash could be to take a new direction and throw out what they don't need. Like what the Zelda devs said they did with BotW. We'd complain. And we'd love it.

For example; I was hoping that they would bring the character roster way, way down; Smash 1 levels. Then you'd have the freedom to do stuff like revealing a new challenger once that character gets its own game on Switch, and design the character around that game. So we'd already have BotW Link (Hang-glider, Shield surf!) and Odyssey Mario (nerfed Cappy Throw!!), but there would be no Samus yet because Metroid Prime 4 hasn't dropped yet. And we'd know that when it does, we can boot up Smash, and a new challenger would appear.

It would not please everyone. But it sure would be exciting.

That said, the E3 reveal featured competitive play, and bringing all previous games together is a strong attempt at bringing the divided smash competitive scene (melee vs. 4) together. Doing so would be an accomplishment that's worth a less innovative iteration.

@Anti-Matter: Nintendo has only three fighting games? What about Pokémon Tekken DX, Joy Mech Fight, and Urban Champion? ^^ I wish I could still add Killer Instinct to this list, but that was sold.

Just do like FIFA or Call of. Slap the year on it and release it again as a new game.

@CuriousUserX90 There’s been a Ballot we were submitting to in 2015 as to who we’d like to see as fighters. Each submitted fighter will be considered for being a fighter, though not all at once for good reasons: https://mynintendonews.com/2018/04/03/super-smash-bros-fighter-ballot-data-to-be-used-for-reference-for-future-smash-games/amp/#click=https://t.co/DHPUzWG65l

This news was relieving for the fact the franchise will have a future beyond Ultimate even without Sakurai’s involvement. Stuff from games released after Ultimate should get some reference in the only time Nintendo Characters can all come together at some point over the years.

Start selling those types as games as a service. If you bought it on Switch, you get it for free on future consoles.
Add cosmetics for extra revenue to support this model.

Constant updates, new characters added as years go by.
Follow Dota2 model.

For me, how "ultimate" it is will depend on how robust its single player offerings are. Smash 4, while quite fun, really let me down in that regard. Especially in the Wii U version.

@CuriousUserX90 Thank goodness fighters that do get cut are not those that’ve played a Big Part in the franchise. I’m sure though there are good explanations for who does get cut, more likely that would occur to the Cloned Fighters, Falco I know wasn’t cut from later games following because of his importance in the Star Fox Franchise, he is to Fox as Luigi is to Mario, so they made him less of a Clone since Brawl. Same can be said for those who wouldn’t make it because of a system’s limitations which went for Ice Climbers, Squirtle and Ivysaur in Smash 4, and those who’d have a similar reason to Mewtwo, Lucas, Wolf and Snake (former 2 though did manage to return as DLC in Smash 4). Of course though, we may never know if there’ll be future gaming systems that can have games of any franchise to support over 100 playable characters, which could lead to real advantages for particular gaming franchises.

@Candido0411
"Can we get a Street Fighter x Nintendo fighting game? It's long over due."

And then Mario can do Super Art by A-ISM from Alpha 3.
Let's see...
1. Super Stomping Buster ( 2 x Front Quarter + Kick )
2. Yahoo Mega Uppercut ( 2 x Front Quarter + Punch )
3. Mega Fire Blast ( Hold Back, Front Back Front + Punch )

Oh, wait...
Actually, there was EVER a Fighting Mario games on NES...
Hacked NES games.

And i Had EVER played that game when i was kid (I didn't realize if it was a Hacked game at that time).

This is not the first time this happens.
Super Mario Galaxy 1 ruined all possibilities for the sequels. It is still the best 3D platformer and it will stay that way forever because it is impossible to create something of its kind but better. It is the best 3D platformer possible.

If Ultimate has a great single player adventure mode akin to melee/brawl with a few modern tweaks, THEN you can start worry about future releases.

I mean, he's not wrong in one respect. Having all the characters brings the total to 65 and that's insane. However, I don't think it'll ruin the future of the series — they'll just need to reboot it somehow and scale it back a bit.

I can see how he arrived at that opinion but I think there's always room to grow and improve. Yes, it get's creatively tougher every single time he jumps into the lead on the series, but maybe that means it's time for someone different to lead the series going forward. Maybe Smash gets a single player adventure mode again?

@Warruz That's pretty much what ultimate is....

@Nincompoop If you're saying that ultimate looks "probably worse" than Wii u, you must have not seen any gameplay. The graphics are one of the biggest things and look 100 times better than Wii u

Instead of another iteration of Smash Bros, they could make a spinoff with the same mechanics. Such as a Pokemon Smash with all Pkmn characters and a bigger roster than Pokken

@sixrings there were ports of Atari games on the NES. There were ports of NES games onto the SNES. There will always be ports. As long as Nintendo continues the new games too, which they have, then how could porting great games to new consoles for new players be a bad thing?
It’s like saying that music on a record shouldn’t be available on iTunes.

Waluigi! That's what's next. 😂

I haven't really been following the story properly, but, why isn't Waluigi in the game?

@LuckyLand You do know they made a sequel, right?

@MasterJay Yes, the worst 3D Mario game ever made you mean

Disney v Smash Bros?

The world of Nintendo is so rich and vast, there is tons of material to draw from for future iterations that can provide fresh experiences. With that being said, you can also explore really diversifying the roster with characters outside of Nintendo. Maybe experiment with different mechanics not used in a Smash game and see what stages have yet to be used that could add potential different experiences

If they port this (which is likely) to the Switch 2, it will probably be one of the better options. Throw in more stages and characters and people will eat it up.

@LuckyLand Yeah, I liked it better than the first

Considering Smash U (funny that it's actually abbreviated Smash U, just like the last Smash U that it's "not a port of" ) is basically just a compilation of previous Smash, I don't see how that would affect new content in the next new game. We already know there's not many new characters this time (we don't know how many new but Sakurai said not to expect many, so there's a huge list of new potential characters next time.

Even leaving out potential non-Nintendo characters, there are still plenty of 1st party Nintendo characters that could be added as playable. Waluigi, Toad, various popular Fire Emblem characters, more Pokemon, Peppy and Slippy, Soda Popinski, etc.

Plus, they could always switch up the core mechanics and give us something fresh.

I don't really get what he's saying here. A Super Smash Bros that contains all of the characters from previous games and has most of the stages doesn't even begin to mean that something better can not be made. It is nothing more than a reflection on the past. It could be used as a stepping stone to make something much more ambitious next time.

They could always add to the roster, stages, and game modes if they want to make a 6th Smash game for the next console.
There's no reason to scale back when they have everything balanced and perfect already.
There's also no reason to reboot as that's like starting from scratch with different gameplay mechanics which would be stupid because Smash has such a following because of its current gameplay.

Imo, they should build on Ultimate, and not taking away from it.

@Anti-Matter I think a game with your boxing characters would be great

From my understanding, maybe Smash Ultimate could be the MvC2 for the Smash series. In MvC2, the game mostly focused on re-introducing every single characters from the previous games (from CotA to MvC1) and including only a few newcomers. Then came MvC3 which had a smaller roster with much more newcomers, especially with the Ultimate edition. So who knows, maybe the next Smash installment could focus on bringing newer characters while sacrificing old ones, but that's just me anyways.

Of course, I also wouldn't mind if they keep updating Smash Ultimate for the next Nintendo platforms, didn't stop Capcom from doing the same thing with Street Fighter.

@Lalivero @Banjos_Backpack All Nintendo would have to do to justify a sequel of Super Mario Maker is simply introduce the ability to add hills, inclines, downhill slides, etc - maybe even introduce a simple sprite editor for static background objects like trees, clouds, item boxes, power ups, etc. Throw in a Super Mario Bros 2 (USA) template, and - maybe as a carry over from Mario 2 - give players the choice to play as Mario, Luigi, Toad, and Peach (and if Nintendo was feeling especially bold, give each of the playable characters a minor difference in how they control).

That would be an easy purchase for me.

The best move for Smash going forward would probably be to keep porting Smash Ultimate to the next console and update with new content (so kind of like the Mario Kart 8 approach if the upcoming Mario Kart 8 Deluxe updates includes more tracks, battle arenas, characters, etc.)

There's only one logical option here: expanding the roster beyond games.

Prepare for Darth Vader in Smash Bros.

That's the bad part about calling it "Ultimate", right Sakurai?
If you use fighting game examples of the past, there's a couple of ways the next SSB could go: 1) It's even bigger, with all the stages and characters carried over + new characters, stages, etc. or 2) Back to basics, with a streamline, Nintendo focused cast, with all original stages save for a few classic stages.

I wouldn't be surprised if SSB gained a year number like SSB '24, SSB '29 for next iterations to just reflect whatever year of whatever new system it's on. It's not likely to die, even if Sakurai himself is not even involved. It's Nintendo's "All-Star Game" til further notice.

I don't see how. Other than the task being increasingly difficult. There's always characters to add and stages to add.

I'm no developer, but I feel like we're reaching the point of diminishing returns. Older characters more or less play like they do in Smash 4.

I'd be okay if Smash turned into a service like Overwatch.

@Banjos_Backpack Making the game like Pokken, would be like making Mario Kart an over the head pixel racer.

You can't do that. It would stop being Smash.

I hope they added a story mode like SE from Brawl and I would love to see the boss character from Brawl return I thought the Wii U Smash was lacking for not having the story mode which was a blast to play with a second player and the hand was boring as the final boss compared to the final boss from Brawl. If the final boss from Brawl is a playable character in Ultimate that would be amazing, I can't remember his name but I remember he was awesome to fight .

He said something similar after last Smash game, although this time it might actually be true since it's pretty much just a content update (yes I'm aware there are some minor gameplay tweaks as well) if he's emphasizing the 'all characters playable' aspect so much.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Just make Smash a service based game.

If Smash were to be rebooted, I know that i and many others would be extremely dissapointed. The first characters gone would be the third parties, which sucks cause Cloud, Sonic, and Snake are all awesome additions. I can even see Captain Falcon getting cut due to his irreverence for such a long time, which would be the most dissapointing to me. And then you'd have characters with a 100% chance of getting cut: Duck Hunt, ROB, all Echo Fighters, Toon and Young Link, Dr. Mario, Little Mac, and, possibly, Ness and Lucas.

If a reboot happens, Ultimate could likely become the new Melee in that people will prefer it to new entries in the franchise. I know it will for me anyway.

I read the article, but nowhere does he say it "could ruin" future installment/games.
he only said he thinks about the NOW to make smash ultimate a complete game. Not saving anything for next, so the next installment will offer something new.

Im so hyped for this game. I do hope we get storymode, if that happends its the best game ever created lol.

@Grumblevolcano: I would be totally fine with that as long as the series doesn't move to a yearly release cycle.

If they're thinking about how sequels will be affected, they shouldn't have called it "Ultimate." Ultimate literally means "last," or "final," and is usually reserved for something that has reached its pinnacle and really can't be improved upon.

@RadoGoji Well, with 2D Mario games they gave up on coming up with good names after about World.

Way to exaggerate what he actually said.

@MasterJay
Definitely. Me and my friends can't stop talking about the improved graphics.

@Tyranexx Why not? If you’re okay with rebuying the same $80 game every 5 years (with only $10-20 with of new content), why not every one year? And release a whole new console every year while we’re at it (just like with the iPhone). Portbegging should be taken to its logical conclusion.

@RadoGoji that may be in the definition but it’s not always how it’s used. Look at something as old as Digimon - Ultimate was the final evolution of them... until they added Megas after that. And then several more evolutions.

Basically a lot of things get labeled ultimate because they’re the last at the time but then things keep going. I never for a second thought this would be the last Smash, since when does Nintendo abandon their cashcows?

@ShadJV Fair point, but it still irks me quite a bit.

@NEStalgia It's called SSB-Special in Japan, so I wouldn't read too much into that. I think someone on their English marketing team had a hand in this, because Ultimate has better connotations.

@Nincompoop with a comment like that, you have a very fitting username.

@Regpuppy "Special" sounds about as much port/edition as you can get, even more than ultimate to be fair I've been curious if Nintendo is going through all the same gyrations in Japan as they are here trying to promote the game as a new numbered entry rather than a "special edition" "ultimate collection" whatever? I'm not sure if it's "Nintendo" forcing that perspective, or if it's NoA forcing that perspective and Japan is totally fine with collections without needing weird spin for it.

But yeah, someone really didn't bother to think about "Smash U" as a follow-up to "SmashU" It has to be whoever thought that releasing the XBox One X after the XBox One S might not cause confusion.

Honestly, if anything this would be a great grand finale for the series. I'd miss it for sure, but I'd rather see it end on what's clearly a peak than see it drag on well past its expiration date.

@ShadJV Actually in the original Japanese, Ultimate WAS the final form of Digimon. This has been your useless fact of the day. :V

They already ruined it when they treated it more like a port and less like a new game...

If anything, this is Sakurai saying he's out of ideas, so it's time for another person to direct Smash games to bring fresh direction to the series.

@NEStalgia Not that the distinction matters to my enjoyment of the game. But this argument over port/new game is weird to me regardless. I've seen people happily accept mild variations of the same fighter, shooter, and strategy games as "new games" even when they're very similar to the old games. Hell, most of the industry has been using the same few game engines for years now, and multiple sequels end up using the same exact engine, and mechanics, with a smidge of new content on top.

But a lot of people in the Smash community are convinced this is a port because it uses the same engine, despite the changes to the core gameplay and content additions not present in the previous game.

We gamers need to sit down and decide what the hell makes something a new game, a port, a remake, or a deluxe edition. Because all of these things are starting to lose their meaning. Lol

As for naming conventions, Nintendo has them beat. They thought it a good idea to put "New" in the name of their 3DS iteration, forcing me to explain to friends/family that my New 3DS had New in the name and I didn't just get a brand new "old" 3DS....argh. Also, they put U at the end of a previous consoles name for one of their new consoles, and didn't do well in marketing it as entirely different from the Wii.

I love Nintendo, but they do some stupid-silly things sometimes. Lol

I still don't think taking the characters from old games and giving them Smash U face lifts & minor cosmetic changes was as 'painstakingly difficult' as they act. Then again, I'm also someone who thinks fighting games shouldn't take out characters to begin with, unless: A.) It's a reboot, B.) A character was considered 'offensive' (which wouldn't happen in Smash), or C.) They can't get a Third-Party/guest character like Snake or Ryu back.

@Regpuppy The engine isn't the game, the content is. Quake 2 was not Quake (or even slightly similar) despite using a newer version of the same engine. Half-Life 2 was nothing like Half-Life 1 despite using a newer version of the same engine. Unreal 2....ok we'll just pretend it never happened

Battlefield 1 is nothing like 4, or 5. COD has a whole new campaign every time. New characters, world, story etc. Online may recycle maps but there's a whole new game of content in there. I don't get the "shooters recycle" defense applied to shooters. FIFA recycles. Shooters, have recurring content along with massive new content.

Fighters have a tougher time. SFII Hyper Fighting, Turbo, etc never pretended to be a different game, just a new port/edition with some changes. SF III is a very different game with some base similarities.

Here we have a game where the selling point is not new mechanics, or all new characters, or all new stages but that it's a collection of things that already were in other games with some HD enhancements and performance tunings.

One key difference here is when there is a major visual change it accompanies new hardware that makes a major difference. Switch is not a major evolution on WiiU in terms of what it can achieve technically as a wired console.

To be a sequel a game can either have a very different art/rendering approach that changes the entire feel of the game (SFII to SF4, Smash 64 to Melee) or if it's a sequel on, say, the same console (WiiU->Switch is an upgrade but not a huge generational leap in docked performance) it will have to look mostly the same so the game design, or included content really needs to be varied.

This is a game that looks largely the same, plays largely the same, on similar performing hardware, that includes mostly the same content, with the primary difference being the inclusion of prior content, and a small amount of new stuff thrown in. By any other name that's a compilation/remaster/collection/"ultimate edition."

Imagine if Super Mario Galaxy 2 also on the Wii was just Mario Galaxy 1, with some changes to Mario's jump height, run speed, some tuned textures/models, enemy positions and speeds, and the inclusion of Mario 64 and Sunshine maps, polished to Wii graphics. That wouldn't be Mario Galaxy 2. That would be an updated compilation of Mario Galaxy.

This doesn't focus on a significant new appearance, nor on significant new content. It focuses on old content and some tweaks and tuning. Nothing about this couldn't have been a patch DLC for WiiU other than higher resolution performance.

Note that I'm not saying such a compilation is bad or should exist. It's a great value. I just don't like someone lying to me and telling me something that's clearly a compilation/enhanced edition of an existing game is in fact a new game entirely. If the series has run it's course and has really done all it can do then that's fine. You don't need constant new versions of the game to sell it. GTA still leads the charts years later. SFII is still probably the most popular fighter there is (across all editions/collections.) It's ok if SmashU is really "Smash Enternal" to keep adding content to. Just stop trying to pawn it off as "totally new game!" when that's not what it is.

That's why I'm curious if they're doing that in Japan or if that's just for the "stupid Westerners".

@shoeses Smash is different because they were previously released so far apart, on entirely different hardware, that it kind of necessitated them basically retooling the game. Especially since, and I know people loved Melee/Brawl/64, previous games were buggy messes.

That being said, I think Sakurais downfall is he thinks he needs to reinvent the wheel every time. I think Smash, and technology in general, is at a point where they can put this version on every future console and just support it through DLC and graphical updates.

@NEStalgia I guess it's just semantics at the end of the day. The only thing that matters is whether this iteration is a good value, and I think we both agree that it is. I guess my problem is the negative connotation of the word "port" on the Switch, rather than the label itself.

Anyway, now to impatiently await new Smash announcements, and December is oh so far away.

All I want in the game is a story mode and meta knight.

@Warruz i get that, but i want Geno in smash bros ultimate.

@-DG ikr i really want Geno. #Genoforsmash

Maybe the next iteration could take up less than half the console’s internal memory

@Broosh Sorry but no! Sakurai wouldn't do that in the first place and Nintendob wouldn't let a cash cow like smash bros die just to turn it into a spinoff. Sorry but that's a terrible business move. A lot of people loves smash just to see a pokemon smash!?!? People would be pissed.

@Regpuppy Certainly, it does seem like a good value! My complaint isn't about the actual product, it's about what I feel is false representation of it, deliberately by Nintendo, trying to "set the narrative" by saying the false "fact" over and over. (At least in NoA, maybe or maybe not NCL)

A painting may be beautiful, and it may be selling for $1000, and it may be worth the $1000 or more, but if the seller keeps trying to insist it was originally owned by the King of Canada, I'm not going to think very highly of the seller

@Euler @Grumblevolcano ml it wouldn't cost 80 dollars it's 60

@NEStalgia Stop with it's a port crap. It's too early for judgment, so stop saying it's a port like it's finished. 1. What your talking about us a enhanced port, learn what port means 2. At least it's a sequel at most it's a new game 3. Sakurai said they are halfway through development at the smash invitational, this isn't the finished product It 4. Until Nintendo or sakurai after release date 100% confirms it as a new game, enhanced port, or sequel then we are merely guessing. Like I've said before it's too early for judgment. Just wait until the game is out then you can judge because it's dumb to judge a beta version of the game.

@Lazygamer17 I never said it wasn't an enhanced port, in fact I've said it was many times. A collection is neither a sequel nor a new game. It's a collection, a bundle, and enhanced edition, whatever you want to call it.

Half way through...that was June. Game needs to go gold by early November. If 5 remaining months of dev means half way through that means the game will have taken less than or up to a year to make. That's, again, not a sequel/new game.

Nintendo (NoA) is already "100% confirming" it's a new game per the NL interview with Bill Trinen. That's the part that's frustrating (especially given his more than tenuous reasoning and clear deflection of the question.)

If there's a vast single player campaign like Subspace, I'll gladly grant it's actually a new game. Barring that, what we've seen isn't going to change much. Not with 4 remaining months of dev left. It's already clear, visually, content, gameplay is enhanced but mostly the same, but with extra (old) and as sakurai stated, limited new content.

Again, I'm totally fine with it being an enhanced port, or super special edition. That's perfectly fine. Including at $60. It's the spin that bothers me.

@NEStalgia what do you mean by spin? Also sorry if sounded aggressive, however just because it builds off the previous game or takes a little or lot from it doesn't mean it can't be new or a sequel. If sakurai or Nintendo After Release date confirmed it as a enhanced port, sequel or new game. Like i said before it's just merely assumptions on what's be shown. You can't force your opinion as fact, that doesn't mean it's a enhanced port and i get it, i wouldn't care if it was a enhanced port because i loved smash wii u/ 3ds not including smash tour, but i still great. But until we either get a smash direct or Nintendo direct of some kind or get the Full gsme ourselves, then we're guessing what it is.

@Lazygamer17 In Canada, it’s 80 (unless it’s discounted for some reason).

@Warruz I would have to disagree on that one. After this game there would litterally be no reason to make another. Any sequel that omits characters already in Ultimate would seem like a downgrade. Any extra modes would be redundant when they could just put it in Ultimate. As you can see its such a wasted effort that changing movesets of existing characters and adding more characters wouldn't make sense, and It wouldn't be enough to make a difference. Especially when they could just update it into the current game.

In order to make a new Smash game worth it it would have to be drastically different from previous games. Its already bad enough that there are people who only really see the game as just an expanded port, understandably so. However, to have a future Smash stand out it would need to do something like turn into a 3D brawler or a product similar to that to make real a difference.

@sonicnerd14 I don't believe this needs to be the case. Take a look at many other fighting games, especially Japanese developed ones. Roster size is not the main metric for success for many of these, and on several occasions, resuced or changes rosters and found success.

The game is SSB ULTIMATE When you make the ultimate version of something, it isn't supposed to be something you can surpass. I think it would be fair to let the franchise rest for a long time after SSB. Perhaps even 10 years. Let enough time pass that technology improves significantly and a whole new generation of kids is ready for a new entry. I mean Melee is still well loved and it's 17 years old so... If SSB Ultimate is done right, it could easily live up to the name and be a major contender for a decade to come.

@shoeses I’m well aware hence why I said it was the final form until they added more. Just like this is the final Smash... until they make more.

@Warruz True, however my 18 years or so of playing fighting games like Tekken and Street Fighter the rooster doesn't expand as much from the previous games like they did in the 90's or early 2000's, and I would say samething goes with character movesets. Characters very rarely get complete overhauls to movelists, and typically only several veteran characters carry over from previous games. Just look at SFV at launch for an example. Pretty much as barebones as you could as a fight with only about 15 characters at launch. Tekken 7, while a much better example had about 36 at launch, and around 39 now. That's a step down from Tag Tournament 2 which had 55. People still criticize both games for lacking a lot of content at launch.

Smash Ulti is one of the very VERY few fighting games ever that is building on the foundations of every Smash before it. So this is a rarity in fighting games. Because of balance and polish issues, to simply fabricate a new game in the same fashion as Smash Ult would be incredibly difficult. Just adding stuff would not be enough for a future Smash game I guarantee you. Sakurai knows this, and its why he's clearly stated his outlook on the future of the franchise. Also why we might not see another Smash, or at least not for a very long time, 5+ years at least maybe.

@Euler: My main concern is over-saturation as shown by other franchises. I'm also one who tends to like longer development cycles. I feel like that (generally, but not always) gives the team(s) behind games more time to get their creativity juices flowing and not to come out with a rushed product. Trust me, I played my share of soulless, rushed cash-grabs back in the day.

@Lazygamer17 lol I didn't mean as future of the series just a small offshoot not a huge project like smash ultimate. Just saying, I would dig a smash style Pokemon over another Pokken

@Tyranexx If there are people that see SSBU as a cash grab, it's probably only Wii U owners. For the majority of the world that skipped that system, it will probably seem amazing. I did have a Wii U, so SSBU will be joining MK8D, Bayonetta, and Captain Toad as games I skip on the Switch.

I don't see a problem with improving the previous iteration again and again. Many games do it and it works just fine. Don't need to reinvent the wheel.
Same for MK8, they could just release new cups from other Nintendo IPs and it'd be gold.

I don't think Sakurai should worry too much about the future of Smash. The new game hasn't even released yet, and Nintendo will find a way to make a great Smash game after Ultimate.

I don’t like leaks, messes up developers’ plans, kills my surprises, so some random a**hole could have their 5 minuets of fame. I’d do everything I can to avoid spoilers.

@NEStalgia
You can type as many paragraphs as you want but that does not make the game a port.

Secretly, I think he wanted to do this in part so that there couldn't be a next game and he could do something else. Its no secret that Smash has made the man a wreck. I see this at the least, the last smash game, and at best, the game that will be ported forward to new systems for eternity, with the simple task of just adding a new stage or character every so often from new Nintendo IPs and games.

I think he hopes this ruins it and is the big push to end it and be what melee ought to have been in his mind.

And really to be quite honest I think he deserves to work on something new, and I would be happy to see him make something unique, new and bold. He obviously makes good games.

@Regpuppy How were the previous games buggy messes? And how were any of the Smash games, maybe minus the first, 'reinventing the wheel'?

@Lazygamer17 I'm not sure relying on marketing people to tell you what something is or isn't is a very good plan. Just because the sign says "world's best cup of coffee" doesn't actually mean it's the world's best cup of coffee.

The NL interview with Trinnen kind of confirmed everything I expected with the way he (deftly and expertly) dodged ad misdirected the very pointed question about this topic (kudos to @damo and NL for pointing this question straight at him, and even pressing it! I didn't think you had the guts, but you went there, and that deserves respect!)

But it was politician level misdirecting. He (or Nate, rather) answered about development time being vague, saying "the results speak for themselves", then kind of commented that Treehouse doesn't really actually know much about the development cycle and the specifics on Smash ....then Trinen tried to settle it with, essentially "Well there's never been a port before...." (implying that must mean this one can't be?)

It was the weak marketing-speak kind of answer that really told me what I needed to know. But I haven't been following the Japanese media on it. I would actually be surprised if they're trying the same "oh it's an all new game, can't you tell?" rhetoric there. I feel like the charade is just for NoA (and NoE's just following along.)

So yes, Nintendo is "officially" telling us it's all new, not a port, and they're telling us loudly, forcefully, and with full marketing power. The problem is they sound like a politician saying officially, loudly, forcefully, and with full marketing power that "I didn't know she was a prostitute at the time, and no money changed hands for services rendered."

I do agree with you, I don't mind if it's an enhanced port at all. Switch is a better platform for the game, a little visual retouching can't hurt, portability is great, and adding what amounts to a boatload of DLC into the box price makes it an excellent value at standard retail price (considering how the fighting genre loves releasing "free" and "$40" base games with $100 of DLC these days...), I think it's a perfectly valid game to sell.

But every time they smarmily try to paint it directly or insinuate it's a new game and not an enhanced port/collection/ultimate bundle whatever, I want to Ultimate Smash them in the face.

@SetupDisk I'm as big a Nintendo fan as they come, though I usually avoid the "Nintendo Defense Force" tropes....but the "Smash Defense Force" is a whole other breed The game is what it is, and it's not a bad thing, what it is, but the obsession with buying into marketing speak to boost hype for Smash (that doesn't really need deception to be a good or popular product.) I know, I know, reasoning with smash fans is impossible and I should know better, I know how weirdly obsessive the Smash fanbase is, but can't people just accept a value added enhanced Smash 4 package for what it is and be happy without having to do these mental gyrations to say it's Smash 5? Does cooperating with customer expectation marketing goals make the game a better game?

@TheFox So what you’re saying is, it’s not a cash grab unless you supported Nintendo’s business and bought their product the first time around. Though I think it’s too early to say Smash Ultimate won’t have enough new content to offer. They still have five months until release, and traditionally the newcomers and various modes are revealed gradually. I’m not fully convinced based on what they’ve told us, though I am optimistic. If I’m wrong though, there aren’t a lot of “must-have” Switch games besides Mario Odyssey and maybe Splatoon 2. Without Smash, Mario Kart or Zelda there isn’t much incentive to invest in the system.

@TheFox: I don't hope to ever perceive the Smash series as a cash grab; too much care is (currently) clearly put into it. I just wonder what'll happen in the future when Sakurai eventually retired; I'd almost say the poor guy has earned it at this point with how much stress the series puts him under.

I am a Wii U owner and do plan on playing Smash Ultimate on Switch, though I won't be picking up the game on day 1. This is partially because I'm trying to wrap up most of my Wii U games before getting a Switch (thinking around the holidays at this point).

It's kinda ridiculous how many people still say gameplay wise, there are only some minor changes when anyone who actually played the game (including ZeRo who even made a video about the matter) says the game feels very different... And Sakurai hasn't even talked about what modes there will be yet.

@Euler @Tyranexx I don't want to sound overly critical. I'd buy the new one if SSB had been my favorite game on the Wii U, but it wasn't even close. It was fun, but with 3rd party support ramping up, I've just decided I'd rather mix it up with totally new (at least to me) stuff like BlazBlue and Ys VIII rather than revisit familiar territory.

@sonicnerd14 Sakurai already said in another article he is adding less characters the Next game nothing about porting. He also technically confirmed he is working on the next game. Not any soon but whenever they start.

@Lazygamer17 I'm not one to report comments, and i won't report this one, but in it's place, I'll just caution to check yourself.

We're debating opinions on video games and this comment was far far far from appropriate behavior in a public forum.

@Lazygamer17 I'm pretty sure he never said any of that. Where are your sources?

I see new 3rd party characters making appearances in Smash if they make a new one later on. That would be a definite sign of support between Nintendo and said companies plus that would add some new strategies and content to the series. If we’re honest with ourselves we can say that the general abilities Mario has had in Smash Bros history has remained relatively similar. Same with other characters. I’m not hating on Smash I’m saying fans are going in with a decent general idea of some characters abilities.

@NEStalgia
Smash Bros Ultimate is definitely not a port of the Smash Bros Wii U. New characters, improved visuals, altered character designs, changes + tweaks to game mechanics, etc. Pretty much fits the definition of an iterative sequel.

And yikes, some people take video games way too seriously...

I'm honestly not concerned with future Smash games atm. I just really want December to arrive so I can play Ultimate.

@NEStalgia It is a new game. I have a Wii U, and I have a 3DS; that game is not on either one. If you want to get picky about what constitutes a sequel and what doesn't, according to your logic, Super Smash Bros. has never had a sequel, they're all just ports from the N64 with a couple things added here and there. The same could be said of most games.

So the only selling-point is: We have all the old characters. That's not a selling-point for me. I'll buy it for the new stuff. And proper single-player stuff is a must! No, I don't want the exact same missions and trophy's from Smash 4, that would be sooooo lame!!

Some easy ways to make the next entry in the series even better:
~Include both story modes from Brawl and Ultimate as optional DLC (Maybe $3 each?)
~Add some of the most popular character requests from the community
~A brand new, mind-blowing mechanic
~Just port Melee