I personally would like it to, but I doubt that is Nintendo's intentions.
That would involve renegotiating with the third parties involved anytime they want to port Ultimate, & we supposedly came close to losing Cloud. Not to mention that you have to consider balancing all of these characters, hence why I'm saying that constantly building on top of Ultimate for years to come isn't sustainable for the long-term. Hell, like I said already, I'm not even expecting that much DLC for Ultimate, with me expecting Sakurai & Co. to close up shop after the Fighters Pass is done.
At this point, I'm of the opinion that Melee can't be topped in terms of gameplay. But I can respect that Ultimate comes as close as reasonably possible.
True, but you're more likely to see a moveset rework when you start from scratch, as shown by Street Fighter. You wouldn't have gotten such a massive rework for Cody's design & moveset if they just copy-pasted SFIV assets for SFV.
Is it worth losing 30 characters for Mario to stop using the FLUDD?
It wouldn't just be for having Mario ditch FLUDD. And let's be honest, a good chunk of the characters would be gone no matter what. At least starting from scratch would allow you to fully capitalize of the next system's horsepower.
I actually like ultimate better as I haven't played melee seriously in years. I was being sarcastic lol
So basically expanding on custom moves, that would be pretty cool.
Basically the same way Street Fighter, Tekken, & Mortal Kombat approach deciding the roster. I don't see how Smash is any different, as even Sakurai said that doing something like Ultimate is a one-time thing.
But as I'm saying, it does not seem that most of the fighting games are working well with that model.
So you think everyone should be reusing assets for sequels? As for Street Fighter, that's just how things go, starting from zero for each numbered game & only doing editions (or seasons in SFV's case) as a means of building on top of the existing assets.
I do not know what SHOULD be but it is clear that the Smash model is the most successful of all.
True. But on top of Smash being Smash (I.E. a shit-ton of Nintendo characters & quite a few third party guests), having that many characters is likely a balancing nightmare, one that games like Street Fighter & Tekken (where esports is taken more seriously) wouldn't want to incur.
Sakurai will probably get his break after the Fighters Pass is done. He more than earned it (hell, he probably needs it).
Closer to MKX's system in how the moves function and intention. Basically meant to allow you to represent a wider range of abilities the characters have had over the years instead of cherry picking certain things and getting saddled with a one off (see: FLUDD)
In these things I think that the strengths of Smash that make it sells what it sell sare not precisely the competitive or the balance, as in Mario Kart.
Lol every time a new character is announced you get droves of people saying "but why not X character instead."
I personally saw that quote as Ultimate standing tall as a game for 10 years, not so much the game being supported for 10 years.
I would say that of the classic sagas only Tekken is doing well this generation following that model.
Not really. SFV sold worse than 4 and save for the asset flip MKs tend to chose slightly reduced roster + major change in mechanics or massive roster, same mechanics. Can't say for Tekken off the top of my head.
No that's what I meant. He wants the game to last for a long time but who knows if he'll have the same feelings of the next game not retaining the same roster by that time.
