Topic: PlayStation All Stars: Better than Super Smash Bros Brawl!

[MagicCow64]

It's like Sony is trying to cater to the tourney losers who demand that they rain over everyone else's fun with "No Items, Final Destination."

I'll remain cautiously optimistic about this game, but companies have tried cloning Smash Bros. before and no one's succeeded yet.

Ha, oh man, I met some people last year who were into Smash Bros., and I went over to their place to spend an evening drinking beer and playing Brawl. But the first thing they did was turn off all items and stages except for Final Destination. It was boring as ****. And I was treated like a leper for suggesting that this was overly restrictive and hyper repetitive. If that's tourney play I never want to encounter it again. To top it all off, these dudes used the C stick like nobody's business. Now that's horseshit.

As for the Sony game, I have a hard time seeing this taking off. Granted, I'm not a fan of their menagerie of focus-group tested exclusive characters, but I don't feel like there's quite the same bursting desire to see these icons matched up as there was for Nintendo, Sega, Tekken/Streetfighter, or Marvel/Capcom.

[S-U-P-E-R]

It's like Sony is trying to cater to the tourney losers who demand that they rain over everyone else's fun with "No Items, Final Destination."

To top it all off, these dudes used the C stick like nobody's business. Now that's horseshit.

Lol. It begins.

[Oblivion]

Who the **** cares if they use the c stick? Stop bitching.

[MagicCow64]

Well, such is my reward for not sign-posting irony.

[tendoboy1984]

Who the **** cares if they use the c stick? Stop bitching.

Thank you. God, Smash players are so elitest. They think everyone who doesn't use the GameCube controller doesn't know how to play the game.


"Dude, yu sux cuz U use teh Wiimote! GC contruller FTW!"


Does it really matter how you play the game? Plenty of people use the Wii Remote or Classic Controller, and they've mastered the game in their own way.

[Ian Sane]

Today's Penny Arcade stick it this game pretty good: http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/04/30
 
Looking at their forums I'm going to blatantly steal the point someone on their made.  He pointed out that with SSB, Nintendo was taking highly recognizable IP like Mario, Zelda and Pokemon to not only launch a new series in SSB but also boost the profile of their lesser known IP like F-Zero and Earthbound through association.
 
The problem with Sony is that they don't have any IP that's really recognizable on the level of Nintendo's top IP.  So instead of using their highly recognizable IP to launch a successful new series, they're hoping a clone of a popular game will take off and increase the profile of their IP.  It's kind of pathetic actually.  Realistically there isn't much demand for this.  Sony's IP is not popular enough that people would demand this sort of game from them.
 
Thinking about it SSB has been a really effective marketting tool for Nintendo.  Fire Emblem's debut in North America largely came about because of the Fire Emblem characters in Melee generating interest here while Pit's appearance in Brawl helped generate interest in the revival of Kid Icarus.

[broodwars]

Watching the videos, it really drives home an issue I had with this game as a concept a long time ago: these characters are all from franchises with radically different art styles and demographics.  They don't look like they belong together in this game, unlike in Smash Bros. where it looks like the characters could largely have a common point in origin.

And why did they announce the game with these characters, anyway?  Fat Princess?  Colonel Radec (a character who was only in Killzone 2 [and a brief cameo in Killzone 3's flashback intro] and was summarily killed off)?  Parappa the Rapper?  Really?  You really want to have those three characters out at the start to hype your game over...say...Jak and Daxter, Ratchet & Clank, Sackboy, etc?  I can at least understand why Sweet Tooth is there, because a new Twisted Metal just came out a few months back.  Kratos is the most popular Sony character.  Sly Cooper is just awesome and has a new game coming this Fall.  Sony chose to unveil this game with at least half the characters being ones that modern Sony gamers probably don't know very well (if at all), instead of the beloved and well-known characters they do have.

[Adrock]

They don't look like they belong together in this game, unlike in Smash Bros. where it looks like the characters could largely have a common point in origin.

I disagree. Most of Nintendo's characters don't look like they belong in the same game. Mario's head is 700% the size of Link's. Kirby doesn't even really have a body. His face is his body. And he's bright pink. That said, I don't really think that's Sony's problem. These crossover type games work in spite of the mismatched characters.

I'm not sure anyone really wants a Smash Bros. game with Sony characters. The game is practically a Smash Bros. type game on almost every level and it features far less popular characters to boot. Nintendo could sell a Mario only or Zelda only fighting game; except they didn't. They put them all together and made a juggernaut. Had Sony done something very different from Smash Bros. (like copying Power Stone instead, as previously mentioned), they probably would have gotten a better reaction.

[tendoboy1984]

Today's Penny Arcade stick it this game pretty good: http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/04/30
 
Looking at their forums I'm going to blatantly steal the point someone on their made.  He pointed out that with SSB, Nintendo was taking highly recognizable IP like Mario, Zelda and Pokemon to not only launch a new series in SSB but also boost the profile of their lesser known IP like F-Zero and Earthbound through association.
 
The problem with Sony is that they don't have any IP that's really recognizable on the level of Nintendo's top IP.  So instead of using their highly recognizable IP to launch a successful new series, they're hoping a clone of a popular game will take off and increase the profile of their IP.  It's kind of pathetic actually.  Realistically there isn't much demand for this.  Sony's IP is not popular enough that people would demand this sort of game from them.
 
Thinking about it SSB has been a really effective marketting tool for Nintendo.  Fire Emblem's debut in North America largely came about because of the Fire Emblem characters in Melee generating interest here while Pit's appearance in Brawl helped generate interest in the revival of Kid Icarus.

Actually, that's a great idea for Sony. Smash Bros. helped increase the popularity of Kid Icarus (Pit) and Fire Emblem, so why wouldn't Sony's version do the same for their franchises?


If this PS All-Stars game is a hit, then it would be a great marketing tool for their lesser-known franchises.

[tendoboy1984]

Watching the videos, it really drives home an issue I had with this game as a concept a long time ago: these characters are all from franchises with radically different art styles and demographics.  They don't look like they belong together in this game, unlike in Smash Bros. where it looks like the characters could largely have a common point in origin.

And why did they announce the game with these characters, anyway?  Fat Princess?  Colonel Radec (a character who was only in Killzone 2 [and a brief cameo in Killzone 3's flashback intro] and was summarily killed off)?  Parappa the Rapper?  Really?  You really want to have those three characters out at the start to hype your game over...say...Jak and Daxter, Ratchet & Clank, Sackboy, etc?  I can at least understand why Sweet Tooth is there, because a new Twisted Metal just came out a few months back.  Kratos is the most popular Sony character.  Sly Cooper is just awesome and has a new game coming this Fall.  Sony chose to unveil this game with at least half the characters being ones that modern Sony gamers probably don't know very well (if at all), instead of the beloved and well-known characters they do have.

Because this game celebrates the history of all things PlayStation, regardless if they are well-known or not. Would Smash Bros. be the same if it only features instantly-recognizeable characters like Mario, Link, and Pokemon? Nintendo added their lesser-known characters for fan service, and to show the world their history, that they haven't forgotten their roots.


What is wrong with Sony doing the same?

[Oblivion]

Because Sony doesn't have "roots". They have Crash...and that's about it.

[tendoboy1984]

Because Sony doesn't have "roots". They have Crash...and that's about it.

Crash and Spyro were never owned by Sony. Sony just published the Crash and Spyro games for Universal Interactive (Crash and Spyro's previous owners).


Once the PS1 was nearing the end of it's life, Naughty Dog and Insomniac decided to move on from Crash and Spyro. Universal took the two series over, handing them off to various developers over the years. Universal Interactive then merged with Vivendi, forming Vivendi Universal. Vivendi Universal was later bought by Activision, forming Activision-Blizzard.


After all this, Activision is now the owner of Crash and Spyro.

[TJ Spyke]

Because Sony doesn't have "roots". They have Crash...and that's about it.

Crash and Spyro were never owned by Sony. Sony just published the Crash and Spyro games for Universal Interactive (Crash and Spyro's previous owners).


Once the PS1 was nearing the end of it's life, Naughty Dog and Insomniac decided to move on from Crash and Spyro. Universal took the two series over, handing them off to various developers over the years. Universal Interactive then merged with Vivendi (forming Vivendi Universal). Vivendi Universal was later bought by Activision, forming Activision-Blizzard.


After all this, Activision is now the owner of Crash and Spyro.

Close. Activision didn't buy Vivendi Games. They merged (if you want to get technical, Vivendi was the leading company in the deal as Activision Blizzard is owned by Vivendi SA.

Basically, Vivendi bought Univeral Studios and formed Vivendi Universal Games. After Vivendi sold Universal, they changed the game studio's name to Vivendi Games. In 2007, Activision and Vivendi Games merged and became Activision Blizzard (with the new company owned by Vivendi SA).

[Oblivion]

Because Sony doesn't have "roots". They have Crash...and that's about it.

Crash and Spyro were never owned by Sony. Sony just published the Crash and Spyro games for Universal Interactive (Crash and Spyro's previous owners).


Once the PS1 was nearing the end of it's life, Naughty Dog and Insomniac decided to move on from Crash and Spyro. Universal took the two series over, handing them off to various developers over the years. Universal Interactive then merged with Vivendi, forming Vivendi Universal. Vivendi Universal was later bought by Activision, forming Activision-Blizzard.


After all this, Activision is now the owner of Crash and Spyro.

Nice history legend. You just went against your own opinion.

[tendoboy1984]

Because Sony doesn't have "roots". They have Crash...and that's about it.

Crash and Spyro were never owned by Sony. Sony just published the Crash and Spyro games for Universal Interactive (Crash and Spyro's previous owners).


Once the PS1 was nearing the end of it's life, Naughty Dog and Insomniac decided to move on from Crash and Spyro. Universal took the two series over, handing them off to various developers over the years. Universal Interactive then merged with Vivendi, forming Vivendi Universal. Vivendi Universal was later bought by Activision, forming Activision-Blizzard.


After all this, Activision is now the owner of Crash and Spyro.

Nice history legend. You just went against your own opinion.

What? I was simply telling you why Sony isn't the owners of Crash and Spyro, and they technically never were.


Sony has:

• Uncharted
• Resistance (created by Insomniac, published by Sony)
• Ratchet & Clank (created by Insomniac, published by Sony)
• LittleBigPlanet
• ICO / Shadow of the Colossus
• God of War
• inFamous
• Patapon
• Fat Princess
• Syphon Filter
• Flow / Flower / Journey (all 3 games created by "thatgamecompany", but published by Sony)
• LocoRoco
• MediEvil
• Twisted Metal
• PaRappa the Rapper
• Jet Moto (an old PS1 series)
• Gran Turismo
• Cool Boarders (an old PS1 series)
• Sly Cooper
• Jak & Daxter
• The Last of Us (the new game from Naughty Dog, the developers of Uncharted and Jak & Daxter)
• WipeOut
• ModNation Racers
• The Getaway

So yeah, Sony has plenty to choose from.

[Spak-Spang]

Sony has plenty to choose from, but I agree Sony doesn't have the same characters with history and roots that Nintendo has.  Almost everyone of Nintendo's beloved franchises started on the NES.  That is adding over 10 years of history to anything Sony has. 

Not only that Nintendo has characters that are widely recognized around the world and associated with Nintendo.  Some of these characters are more recognizable than Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny.  (Mario and Link)  Sony doesn't have that at all. 

I don't think people see Papa the Rappa and think of Sony or Playstation.  I wouldn't see the Kill Zone characters and immediately assume, oh that is a Sony character.  I think although there is history with the Playstation.  It is far from deep.  In fact, I think it is fairly shallow, because Playstation wasn't really known for great 1st and 2nd party games until the Playstation 2. 

Now, this fact doesn't mean the game will fail...if the game is fun it has a great chance of succeeding.  What it means is this isn't a grand slam instant win game...like Smash Bros was going to be...or The Avengers movie.  They don't have an All Star cast that is going to bring the money in despite how good or bad the game is. 

And I do believe Nintendo's characters fit more in the same universe because despite being of different art styles they are mostly all cartoon characters that do not focus on realism...except for a few.  Where many of Playstation's characters have a realistic vibe to the game...or a specific art style. 

[tendoboy1984]

Sony has plenty to choose from, but I agree Sony doesn't have the same characters with history and roots that Nintendo has.  Almost everyone of Nintendo's beloved franchises started on the NES.  That is adding over 10 years of history to anything Sony has. 

Not only that Nintendo has characters that are widely recognized around the world and associated with Nintendo.  Some of these characters are more recognizable than Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny.  (Mario and Link)  Sony doesn't have that at all. 

I don't think people see Papa the Rappa and think of Sony or Playstation.  I wouldn't see the Kill Zone characters and immediately assume, oh that is a Sony character.  I think although there is history with the Playstation.  It is far from deep.  In fact, I think it is fairly shallow, because Playstation wasn't really known for great 1st and 2nd party games until the Playstation 2. 

Now, this fact doesn't mean the game will fail...if the game is fun it has a great chance of succeeding.  What it means is this isn't a grand slam instant win game...like Smash Bros was going to be...or The Avengers movie.  They don't have an All Star cast that is going to bring the money in despite how good or bad the game is. 

And I do believe Nintendo's characters fit more in the same universe because despite being of different art styles they are mostly all cartoon characters that do not focus on realism...except for a few.  Where many of Playstation's characters have a realistic vibe to the game...or a specific art style.

Well that is true. Sony doesn't do a good job at marketing their own franchises and characters. People usually assume they're just more 3rd-party franchises. It seems Sony doesn't really have an "identity" as a 1st-party publisher.

What about Microsoft? We all associate Halo as a Microsoft franchise, but that's about it.

[Oblivion]

Because Sony doesn't have "roots". They have Crash...and that's about it.

Crash and Spyro were never owned by Sony. Sony just published the Crash and Spyro games for Universal Interactive (Crash and Spyro's previous owners).


Once the PS1 was nearing the end of it's life, Naughty Dog and Insomniac decided to move on from Crash and Spyro. Universal took the two series over, handing them off to various developers over the years. Universal Interactive then merged with Vivendi, forming Vivendi Universal. Vivendi Universal was later bought by Activision, forming Activision-Blizzard.


After all this, Activision is now the owner of Crash and Spyro.

Nice history legend. You just went against your own opinion.

What? I was simply telling you why Sony isn't the owners of Crash and Spyro, and they technically never were.


Sony has:

• Uncharted
• Resistance (created by Insomniac, published by Sony)
• Ratchet & Clank (created by Insomniac, published by Sony)
• LittleBigPlanet
• ICO / Shadow of the Colossus
• God of War
• inFamous
• Patapon
• Fat Princess
• Syphon Filter
• Flow / Flower / Journey (all 3 games created by "thatgamecompany", but published by Sony)
• LocoRoco
• MediEvil
• Twisted Metal
• PaRappa the Rapper
• Jet Moto (an old PS1 series)
• Gran Turismo
• Cool Boarders (an old PS1 series)
• Sly Cooper
• Jak & Daxter
• The Last of Us (the new game from Naughty Dog, the developers of Uncharted and Jak & Daxter)
• WipeOut
• ModNation Racers
• The Getaway

So yeah, Sony has plenty to choose from.

Not all of these can be used. From a design standpoint, some of these just don't work well.

[tendoboy1984]

Not all of these can be used. From a design standpoint, some of these just don't work well.

Your opinion, and I'm sure the developers can tweak the characters to make them work. After all, we got ROB and Olimar (the dude with Pikmin) in Smash Bros. Brawl, and no one thought they would work.

[TJ Spyke]

ROB is a robot, so he easily could work. Gran Turismo would not, there are no actual characters in the game (just vehicles). Same problem with Wipeout and ModNation Racers. Some of the others have similar problems.

[Spak-Spang]

I am not saying Microsoft could do it either.  Actually they can't...Microsoft has even less recognizable characters.

It is actually more a testimony how special Smash Bros truly is...that only a few companies could make a game like this, because they have iconic characters that people have loved for two generations basically. 

Companies that could make a Smash Brothers type game include:

Capcom,
Sega,
Namco,
Konami/ Hudson Soft

That is about it. 

Now, I am not saying that this game will be bad or fail...or even that I have anything against this game.  Just that it isn't the instant win Smash Bros is...and it would be a hard sell to make it an instant win.  The difference between Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft is simple.

When you ask about Nintendo Characters most people can name at least 3 characters from different franchises that are Nintendo characters.  If they are gamers, then at least 5 or more. 

With Sony or Microsoft I think you would get only 1-2 and maybe not even from different franchises...and sometimes not even exclusive characters. 

[S-U-P-E-R]

I remember this discussion from like page one!

Since the last time I posted, I was chatting with Dave Sirlin and he says Omar Kendall knows what he's doing, so I have a little more interest in this game now... I still don't know who the combat designer is though, or if Kendall himself is fulfulling that role, though.

[Adrock]

Sony has plenty to choose from, but I agree Sony doesn't have the same characters with history and roots that Nintendo has.

I agree and that's exactly why I think it was a bad idea for Sony to go right after Smash Bros. with a game so similar on almost every level. Sony's IPs aren't even in the same league. Capcom and Konami (maybe Square Enix since buying Eidos) probably come closest since 10 years ago, Sega decided that respect for their own IPs wasn't something they felt like taking part in. It's not that Battle Royale can't be good. Rather, it will ultimately be viewed as inferior due to its sheer lack of originality. There's no way for the game to exist without it being compared to the game that defined the play style and continues to do so.

Gran Turismo would not, there are no actual characters in the game (just vehicles). Same problem with Wipeout and ModNation Racers. Some of the others have similar problems.

Well, it's not that it can't work. It can if Sony is willing to cheat a little. Sakurai cheated with characters like Fox and Captain Falcon who orginally never left the cockpit. A better comparison is Fighters Megamix which included a Daytona car standing on its rear wheels and AM2's palm tree "mascot."

[nickmitch]

But at least Fox and Captain Falcon were characters. And having a Grand Turismo car stand up and fight on its hind wheels might be too silly for Sony.

[Adrock]

Very true. I was merely pointing out that Sony can represent those series should they so choose. However, I would argue against anything being "too silly" in a game where a man known for slaughtering gods and titans can be defeated by a rapping cartoon dog.