Smash bros is its own beast entirely, and can't really be effectively compared to most other fighting games. I think there's a whole lot of reductive commentary going on about the state of smash bros 'round here though. All things considered, this newest title looks a lot more interesting than the past 2.

	And what's all this talk about 'innovation' anyways? Like, that's such a broad term, what is it referring to exactly; gameplay feel; competitive strategy; visual flare? And from there, how?

	I for one think that smash ultimate introducing direction air dodges and perfect guards already adds enough to entirely mix-up how the game is played. The differences are nuanced, sure. But if you compare it to something like the addition of 'tag battle' functions, it's hard to argue which mechanic brings more change.

	Combo extensions add literally nothing to a fighter, except a way to increase your damage. The only healthy mechanic of tag-battlers is the ability to call in assists that follow a unique set of rules on the battlefield. Even then, these differences can be minimal at worst.

	Smash has always been a party game first, but the game is perfectly viable competitively. Brawl and smash 4 have offered very little in positive innovation admittedly, Brawl especially falling completely flat on its face. But the slight tweaks to mechanics have prevented them from being stagnant titles. The balance changes between titles have been [i]rather extensive,[/i] too. Hitboxes, I.Frames, Superarmor, all that good shit that competitive players care about has gone through a fair amount of change. If you praise the balance changes in face-to-face fighters, and condemn the changes that smash makes, I feel that to be a little narrow.