I've seen Max's impression of the game and I don't really agree with his takes. It seems to me that like wants the arcsys to throw in a half dozen or so sub-systems, meters, or mechanics into the game and in order to give it what he thinks is depth. But depth doesn't actually come from those things.
For example look at BlazBlue Cross Tag Battle. It's a game that feels very flexible when you touch it; it has several systems and mechanics you can explore and toy with. However this game is pretty fucking simple in actuality despite all of this. In neutral, you throw out a strong move that cover a lot of space that has minimal risk and max reward attached to it while you play an offensive assist. Get your opponent to block this and they'll find themselves in a sandwich situation when you activate the crossgage leaving them to eat a bunch of mixups. That's generally how neutral plays out in this game; applying those strong tools and avoiding it from the opponent.
Granblue Versus is different. It's not a game that throws in a half or dozen so mechanics but it's a game where the risk/reward isn't as wild as Blazblue CTB. The tools aren't going to kill you by themselves or lead to situations that's gonna put you in advantage where your opponent can eat 5 or 7 different mixups. The game is more about how you the player can establish your presence on screen using your tools. That's tied to the fact that your tools have sensible risk/reward attached. Like you aren't going to get a corner carry combo that gives you oki off a full screen attack.
I think games like this have higher skill ceilings then your BBTags and that's independent of their mechanics. What do you think determines the skill ceiling of a game?
I agree with a most of what you've said, definitely, except the core premise that extra mechanics don't equal depth. That is literally the point of including more systems into a game. I don't know if you're into Smash Bros. or not, but that game series is living proof that the more movement and offensive options they removed, the worst the game turned into (on a gameplay level, we're not discussing sales here). Releasing Brawl was truly the darkest timeline, and I'm sure most folks can still remember how painfully boring some of those Smash EVO finals were to watch... Smash Ultimate still lacks certain things compared to Melee, but they've also added many new options, which makes the game a ton more fun to watch and play compared to Brawl and Smash 4.
Heck, if you want an easy example, just remove jumping from Smash. Or Street Fighter. Or any other fighter out there. Sure, you can still have an amazing game with almost nothing (props to you Divekick!), but will people keep playing it in the long run when more complex alternatives are available (sorry Divekick...)?
I don't believe for a second that Marvel Vs Capcom 2 would have endured as much as it did if it was the exact same game but one-on-one only, the 3v3 insanity is what gave it that special Mahvel charisma. Marvel Infinite kicked one character from the team, but made up for it with a ton of different mechanics which worked pretty well together (it's just a damn shame about everything else in that game... yuck), so I wouldn't call it simpler, despite said removal.
That doesn't mean games with less stuff in them are inherently worse, the thing is that sometimes, even in technically simpler games, a single variable can justify them being that way and make them great. I'll use Samurai Shodown as en example once more: The ridiculous amount of damage that everything does in that game is what gives its simpler systems meaning. I doubt that the game would be nearly as interesting as it is if matches lasted three or four times longer, it would take all of the excitement out of that specific formula. And even then, important mechanics exist that aren't apparent at all and are essential for the cohesion of the whole thing. A pretty interesting example for me is the timer stopping while Rage Explosion is active. If you took that one simple mechanic out, you would undoubtedly remove a layer of strategy from the game and make it less enjoyable, a mechanic which goes back into the whole "high damage" theme that Samurai Shodown is going for and makes it stand out among other fighters.
All of this to say that I feel something is currently missing from Granblue... That secret sauce, if you will, in order to provide some exciting matches worthy of an EVO game (yes, I'm also aware that Cygames money will get it in there, but I'm talking solely from a gameplay point of view). It feels to me they've made it simpler just for the sake of being easier to get into (and grab that Granblue RPG audience), which is a trend that I am pretty much against when it comes to fighting games because it never amounts to anything in the long run. Maybe something as basic as increasing the game speed could be enough to fix my problems with it, it is definitely a bit on the slow side for me.
Holy wall of text Batman :l Sorry about that lol This stuff is fun to discuss. Anyway, I am fully aware that it's WAY too early to declare this game great or terrible, I'm definitely gonna grab myself a copy, as should any fighting or animation fan out there, but based on my time with it so far, it feels a bit like a reverse Marvel Vs Capcom: Infinite situation here, just not as drastic as that one was. Great looks but lacking a bit of substance, which could get stale quickly if it doesn't have a ton of characters to go with it (and it likely won't, by the looks of that animation... that stuff doesn't come cheap).
