why not stop there, lets just port deluxe again, lets reuse the botw map a third time.
Literally a slippery slope fallacy.
A sequel that builds on Ultimate is not the same as just porting MK8D again.
As
@Lucifer pointed out, it’s weird that you go back and forth on “smahs ultiamte being a beefed up redo of four” but then also saying it was transformative, turning a game that sucked into a good game.
it is unviable from both a business perspective and development perspective and it doenst grow the communty,jsut furhter its decline, people who are tired of ultimate wont come back for the exact smae game with 1 new mode or a couple new characters, ultimate deluxe is dumb, ultimate 2 is even dumber.
I don’t think it will be just “1 new mode or a couple new characters.” I don’t know why you’re repeatedly characterizing my argument as something I’m not saying.
They are not gonna ride out ultimate becuase it doesn’t sell like Mario kart.
Ultimate has outsold every single Mario Kart game save two, and there’s a chance it outsells one of those by the end too.
The next entry is proabably years away but that’s fine. Some people are still getinng smahs, but there isn’t a denial online and the community in general is less active then ever. Ultimate deluxe would do nothing to allieviate that, especially since you can just, play ultimate in the switch 2.
Really? A sequel that built on Ultimate (never said it was “Ultimate Deluxe”) would do
nothing to make the Smash community more active?
It would be the stupidest things Nintendo will have ever done.
Now you’re just in the realm of outright nonsense hyperbole. Ahh, yes, Nintendo’s biggest mistakes: the Virtual Boy, the 64DD, the Wii U, and…launching a new console with a Smash game that builds on its predecessor, as other Smash games have done.
Nintendos goal is money, all their innovation or ack there of goes back to money, the simplest answer is new smash = way more profitable than ultImate but again.
I don’t really think that’s necessarily true at all, and I,
again, also never said the game would be “Ultimate but again.”
It’s odd to me that you characterize Ultimate development as Nintendo’s largest ever undertaking – “the most expensive game they have ever produced, as well as the hardest to produce do to licensing” – but then
also insist they wouldn’t capitalize on that work with a sequel that built on that work.
I’ll be honest, your posts are sort of all over the place here and I don’t really find any of what you’re saying very convincing. The comparison to Yo-Kai Watch, a series that immediately went into
faster than annual installments and then just vanished as YW4 was internally rebooted multiple times, doesn’t really feel like a very apt comparison to Nintendo releasing a sequel six years after the previous game, no matter
how iterative that sequel is.
Sequels that build on their predecessors are not an unheard-of concept in video games. You repeatedly try to characterize Nintendo’s choice as either A) reboot or B) “ultimate but again” with “1 new mode or a couple new characters” and that’s just a false dichotomy. They can use their work with Ultimate as a base and also make meaningful additions and changes, no matter how much you try to act like that’s not one of their options.