*64. The code and engine has been same but tweaked over the years. Melee the same 64, Brawl same as Melee, 4 and Ult are self-explanatory
They switched from something made in-house for 64 and Melee to using Havok since Brawl so already, from a physics engine perspective, this sentence is wrong. Admittedly, a lot of the codes could still transfer over but saying Smash had the same engine in its entire history is incorrect.
And even so, the way codes can be tweaked can lead to entire different vibes. You can't reasonably say that Melee, a fast-paced high-octane game with loads of crazy technical combos, plays the same as Brawl, a slow methodical game where combos don't exist because of a universal combo breaker that's way too easy to abuse. They have the same goal but the means to achieve said goal is fundamentally different between the two of them.
Even with similar code, two games can be and feel entirely different just by changing numbers. And there's a lot more that can be done to make two games different despite using the same code and engine. Wind Waker and Twilight Princess actually have the same engine, for example.
This is the kind of thing I want to see for the next Smash. They don't need to start over with everything, but tweak more numbers than usual for a fresher experience. And maybe some artstyle shift. Bring back the Brawl aesthetic. It would ****ing rule in a console with the Switch 2's power!
Also i'm going to be contrarian and disagree with the consensus. Unless its going to be a huge dramatic shake-up like a 3D Smash akin to Power Stone or Virtual-On, i rather have things be more or less the same. Especially when the cost means losing an entire slate of characters, half if not more just, for them to replaced with recency bias and shill picks. Not for $80
The problem is that since most of the Switch era was skipped, there is
plenty of picks from that era who can be used. Regardless of how they design the next Smash, whether they play it safe by barely changing anything or doing some shake-ups, you
will see what you call "recency bias and shill picks" because this is how Smash usually runs.
Just look at Brawl and Smash 4's newcomer roster. A
lot of newcomers for them were about using stuff that happened since Melee and Brawl respectively. Brawl was able to pull beyond that due to how relatively young and small Melee's roster was, leaving a lot of gaps such as Wario or Diddy Kong. Not so much by the time we got to Smash 4.
Ultimate took the route of fan demand because the Ballot allowed it to, but that Ballot is very outdated now and may not be representative of what today's fandom wants. I would not be shocked if Sakurai returned to how he picked his newcomer options for Brawl and Smash 4.
Something shaken and new =/= good. Sticker Star, Boom, or even games like SWSH were fresh "shake-ups". Smash's strength and dropped ball as other series is due to its consistency.
Yeah but there's also been a lot of good shakeups in history. Mario 64, Metroid Prime and Ocarina of Time were legendary shake-ups whose effects are still felt today. And even for something less drastic, Odyssey making a grand return to a less linear gameplay loop 3D Marios hadn't seen since Sunshine was heavily praised.
I'm not saying Smash getting a shakeup is guaranteed to be good, but it's also not guaranteed to be bad either.
Not saying it should be the same game, Ultimate could use changes to new game like improved buffer, input lag and online but still same core Smash experience.
Well, do you want the same game or not? I'm getting mixed signals here.
I do agree with these changes though.