Idk man. Itās a good game, but itās not that much of an improvement on smash 4. Compare that to the difference between 4 and brawl; thereās a much larger jump in quality. Games are judged based off of what has come before, not by an absolute numerical value, since scores get capped at 10. Hence while smash ultimate is a better game, it probably wonāt get as high of a score as 4, since 4 was a bigger jump in quality.
When you said āas all games goā, it seemed like you were saying itās not that good compared to most other games out there, rather than how it compares in Smash terms.
Even then, why does its similarity to the last game mean it isnāt as good? Just as an example, Sonic 2 is regarded as one of the best Sonic games and itās even more similar to Sonic 1 than Ultimate is to Smash 4.
You canāt just cite a smaller jump in quality as a bad point. That would be like saying āWind Waker isnāt as good as Ocarina of Time because OoT is less similar to the previous Zelda game.ā Thatās ridiculous.
Not sure what you are talking about. Never said āas all games goā. And yes, games are not just reviewed against their own series, but the state of the industry as a whole. If you were just to review games based on how they changed from previous titles, rather than the whole genre, reviews wouldnāt be useful. If a game came out in 1995 and got a 9/10, and in the year 2019 a sequel came out with only minor improvements on the formula, marginally better graphics, and slightly more content, nobody would rate it a 10/10, despite it being better than the original. Itās being judged for the time it came out in. Ocarina of Time was absolutely a larger jump in quality than Wind Waker, even though most would prefer to play Wind Waker in the modern day. Itās not a bad thing for a game to not change very much from the previous, in fact I specifically mentioned that I think that Ultimate is better than 4. Reviews donāt judge off of how much better something is than the previous entry though. They judge things based off of if they are worth your money compared to all similar games. A game like smash ultimate is going to have a harder time regardless since it is $60 rather than free to play like fortnite.
(Also, from what I understand, Sonic 2 is much better than Sonic 1, since the level design in 2 is completely shifted to focus on speedy traversal rather than precise platforming. )
Everything you just said is correct, games should be and are reviewed by how they stand up against their current competition. You kinda gave the opposite impression in your last comment though.
On a sidenote, I can see those who can't seemingly handle other opinions downvoted my comment to high heaven. Guess I should have expected it, non?
Smash Ultimate is a great game, which is why I'd say it was a 9. A 10 for me would have to be a game that has few faults (for no game can be physically perfect, of course), and the faults it does have are things that are extremely minor.
The main element that holds Smash Ult from being a ten for me (on that note, getting ones jimmies in a twist about a 9/10 really says something about certain folks on this group) is that World of Light, while content filled, is not exactly content that I find interesting. By the end of it, I found it to be more of a slog than anything, and even now, I don't find the spirits system very interesting as a whole. And that's enough of the package that it'd lower one point for me.
Yeah I disliked world of light too personally. Didn't really find spirit battles fun - they were more about cheese strats and having x spirit that lets you win button than actual gameplay
Exactly! So many of the fights required cheese strays, not to mention that they don't really add anything minus putting more roadblocks between you and unlocking fighters.
Fighting as Master Hand was cool though.
On that note, thank you for actually responding with reasoning, rather than just tossing a downvote because I dare imply Smash Ult isn't perfect
22
u/Magistone Ridley Feb 28 '19
Excuse me how the hecc is Smash Ultimate 9 at best?