What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Masahiro Sakurai has not claimed that a conventional, one-on-one version of Super Smash Bros. was statistically destined to fail. His comments make a narrower point: changing Smash into a standard fighting game would remove the design choices that give it a distinct audience. He built the series to let first-time players join in, to keep multiplayer situations varied, and to make every hit alter the next exchange through percentage damage and knockback.
What Sakurai actually doubted
A March 23, 2016 translation of Sakurai’s Famitsu column published by Source Gaming says, “If you want to enjoy the strategy or competitiveness in playing against another person, then maybe normal fighting games are more suited for you.” In the same passage, he explains that Smash should let new players have fun rather than create a structure where stronger players completely overwhelm weaker ones.
![Super Smash Bros. Ultimate - Nintendo Switch [Digital Code]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61bkI3XqQ7L._SL160_.jpg)
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
That is a design judgment, not a prediction backed by sales data or a statistical model. Source Gaming also cautions that its text is a fan translation and may not reproduce Sakurai’s Japanese wording or opinions perfectly. The safest interpretation is therefore that Sakurai doubted the fit between Smash’s concept and a conventional fighter format—not that he proved such a game could never succeed.
His position is consistent with a Nintendo Everything interview about Super Smash Bros. Ultimate. Sakurai said that if Smash allowed only one-on-one matches, “it’d become just like any other fighting game.” He has also said he is receptive to Smash being part of esports, while rejecting the idea that esports is the only valid way to enjoy it.
#1 Best Overall
- New stages and fighters are joined by the combined rosters of every past Super Smash Bros. Game
- Challenge others anytime, anywhere, whether you're on the couch or on the go
- Play any way you want—locally, online, in TV mode, Tabletop mode, Handheld mode, or even with GameCube Controllers
- Fight faster and smarter with new and returning techniques, like the perfect shield and directional air dodge
- Face off in 2-4 player battles, or play against the computer
Why Smash is not built like a conventional fighter
| Design question | Traditional fighting-game convention | Smash’s deliberate alternative |
|---|---|---|
| Who can participate? | A higher skill floor can make early matches difficult for newcomers. | Simple movement and attacks, generous multiplayer options and chaotic situations let inexperienced players contribute sooner. |
| How many players? | One-on-one rounds are usually the central competitive format. | Multiple fighters, free-for-alls and team battles are core ways to play, not side activities. |
| How damage works | A health bar generally moves toward zero, with known combo routes taking priority. | Percentage damage rises, increasing the force of later hits; knockback and stage position determine whether an opponent is launched out. |
| How attacks connect | Players often practice fixed sequences and matchup-specific confirms. | Each hit changes launch distance and available follow-ups, encouraging adaptation and improvised interactions. |
| What the game is for | Competitive mastery is commonly the organizing goal. | Party-style accessibility and competitive depth coexist, with neither presented as the only legitimate experience. |
Accessibility without eliminating mastery
Sakurai’s goal was not to make a game with no skill gap. Experienced players can still exploit spacing, timing, recovery options, stage control and matchup knowledge. The difference is that a new player can understand the basic objective—hit an opponent, raise their percentage and launch them—without first memorizing a long command list or laboratory-tested combo route.
Items, varied stages and several-player matches can also create moments in which a less-skilled participant remains involved. Those elements may be inappropriate for a tournament’s ruleset, but they support the broader audience Sakurai was designing for.
One-on-one play would change the identity
Smash supports serious one-on-one competition, yet Sakurai treats it as one mode within a larger structure. If every match were restricted to two fighters, the game would lose the crossfire, temporary alliances, recovery choices and stage hazards that make its encounters feel unlike a standard arcade fighter. His “just like any other fighting game” remark describes that loss of identity, not a claim that one-on-one Smash is impossible or uninteresting.
Recommended Free Tools
The percentage-and-knockback model
A conventional health bar asks players to reduce a mostly stable resource to zero. Smash instead records damage as a percentage. As that number rises, attacks generally send the fighter farther, so the same move can have very different consequences at different points in a stock.
This produces a changing decision problem. Early in a stock, a player may use a low-risk attack to build percentage. Later, the priority shifts toward positioning an opponent for a launch, covering recovery routes and avoiding a punish that could end the stock. Stage edges, platforms and recovery distance matter as much as raw damage.
A second Source Gaming translation describes Smash as an antithesis to the fighting-game genre as it existed in the late 1990s. Its explanation is that percentage damage changes how opponents react after each hit, making traditional fixed combos less central. Smash still contains practiced strings and highly technical setups, but the launch physics and changing percentages mean players must continually adjust rather than execute one universal sequence from a fixed health state.
Rank #3
Casual design and esports can coexist
Calling Smash approachable does not mean Sakurai opposed competition. The series has a deep high-level scene built around precise movement, punish timing, defensive habits, matchup preparation and stage selection. What Sakurai rejects is making that specialist use case the definition of the entire product.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteHis comments distinguish two questions that are often conflated:
- Can Smash support serious competition? Yes; its rules and mechanics allow demanding one-on-one play.
- Should every part of Smash be optimized for that competition? No; doing so would undermine the multiplayer variety and accessibility that motivated its design.
Nintendo’s Iwata Asks archive presents the same development intent: Smash was meant to be approachable to people playing a fighting game for the first time while still functioning as a fighting game. That balance explains why the series can work at a party and at a high-level event without requiring both audiences to play under identical rules.
Rank #4
![Nintendo Super Smash Bros. Ultimate + Super Smash Bros. Ultimate Fighter Pass Bundle - [Digital Code]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/516jRPfTrLL._SL160_.jpg)
- New stages and fighters are joined by the combined rosters of every past Super Smash Bros. game
- Play any way you want—locally, online, in TV mode, Tabletop mode, Handheld mode, or even with GameCube Controllers
- Fight faster and smarter with new and returning techniques, like the perfect shield and directional air dodge
Did Sakurai think a traditional Smash would fail?
Only in the qualified, counterfactual sense that he doubted it would deliver what Smash was supposed to be. No cited source provides a success probability, sales forecast or controlled comparison between Smash and a hypothetical conventional fighter. The evidence is qualitative: interviews and development commentary about audience, format and mechanics.
A traditional version might have attracted players who prefer tightly structured one-on-one competition. Sakurai’s concern is that it would no longer solve the problem he set out to solve—letting newcomers and groups of friends play together while preserving room for mastery. In that sense, “fail” means failing the intended design mission, not necessarily failing commercially.
What this means for players today
When choosing rules, start with the experience you want rather than assuming one format is the authentic one. Use standard one-on-one rules for focused practice, matchup learning and tournament-style competition. Choose teams, free-for-alls, items or varied stages when the goal is shared participation and unpredictable interactions. Both approaches are supported by the same underlying percentage and knockback system, but they emphasize different parts of Sakurai’s design.
Super Smash Bros. Ultimate for Nintendo Switch is the current flagship expression of that approach: a game that can host serious one-on-one matches without being reduced to them. Sakurai’s remarks explain why that distinction is intentional rather than an accident of presentation.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
